European External Action Service: A new dawn in EU Foreign Policy?

The great carve-up: Victorian satirists worried about imperialism, yet super power blocks look an increasingly distinct likelihood

STRASBOURG, July 7, 2010. Catherine Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union:

“We cannot afford to act in a disparate manner in a world that is seeing fundamental power shifts and where problems are increasingly complex and inter-linked. We need to defend Europe’s interests and project Europe’s values in a more coherent and effective way. And we should be ambitious in how we do it…

“Under Lisbon we have the opportunity to operate under one shared comprehensive political strategy. An aspiration now becoming reality.”

The title of this article, A New Dawn in Foreign Policy, is taken directly from External Action Service website. These very words were spoken in front of the hundreds of political representatives from the 27 member states that make up the European Union and its population of over 500 million people, some 7% of the world’s population.

In a recent article for the Telegraph, infamous Eurosceptic and Tory MEP Daniel Hannan asked what constituted a state. He reasoned that under Article One of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

He concluded therefore that the EU has qualified for decades under the first three conditions, and that federal unity has since been cemented via the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and creation of an External Action Service. (Or should I replace these with “constitution” and “foreign office”?) Now, the EU has been formally recognised by the United Nations and is formally able to “enter into relations with other states.”

To put briefly, in everything but name, we are the United States of Europe. I personally find this rather chilling.

But, in Baroness Ashton’s words, is this “important for the future of Europe, important for the future of the world”?

Over the decades that have comprised modernity the shift has been away from boundary buckling medieval empires and towards the creation of republics and independent governments. In fact, many of the biggest imperial players throughout history have been European, from the Romans, to the Habsburgs to Britain, just over a century ago. In the last 100 years especially, the world has surely seen more declarations of independence from former colonies than at any other time in history. The trend has surely been less is more.

Yet now we are seeing huge fundamental political changes in Europe that has attempted to irrevocably reverse this process and bind up an increasing number of countries into a large, federal, continental bloc.

Debate has raged recently over David Cameron’s pledge in Ankara that he wholeheartedly supports Turkey’s accession to the EU and is furious with other member states – from which we can infer France and Germany – for turning their back on this strategically important potential partner. After all, with the world grappling with ideological tensions today between the so-called West and the Middle East, Turkey could be the ideal go between, being both pseudo-European and West leaning as well as ally to countries such as Iran. Who are we to turn them down on the grounds of culture, religion, or race? It seems that the European Union is increasingly resembling a hand of cards in which Turkey could be the all-important trump.

Critics would argue that Turkey remains highly un-occidental in its socio modus operandi which marginalises women and betrays modern day human rights. Supporters would highlight her economic strength and weathering of the credit crunch alongside increasingly logistical importance in a global world.

I do not believe Turkey should join the EU. I, of course, do not even believe we should have a European Union the way that it is today.

What we are likely to increasingly witness is a new kind of territorial configuration, where neighbouring countries politically integrate to make larger, more powerful and interdependent states. The African Union could sprout political wings, Mercosur in South America could expand and perhaps become subsumed by the USA, China could forge closer alliances with her often wary oriental cousins or even Russia while the Muslim Middle East and African Maghreb could conjoin into a Muslim superpower.

Some might reason, as do I, that as trading blocks alone, economies are empowered through interdependence, but with an altogether more outwardly facing aspect, we will develop ideological chunks of the world with the power to tear the globe apart. And it seems the forbearer of this shift is the EU.

The European Commission already had offices in most countries of the world, largely to administer trade and aid policies. Now, however, it is all going to be a much grander affair.

The Commission offices will become diplomatic missions staffed by officials from the EU, reporting to the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. Note here that the preferred title Foreign Minister was blocked by the British.

At this stage we are being reassured that the High Representative will not make policy, which will remain sole sovereignty of member states and policy choices as a bloc would depend entirely upon consensus. But this alone has seen Britain lose her independent voice on international committees and has the potential to nullify the voices of all 27 nations when clashes occur and no unified resolution can be met.

Lady Ashton wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

“To respond to challenges that are global and complex, only integrated strategies will do. The value of the EAS will lie in its being able to bring together the many levers of influence that the European Union has – economic and political, plus civil and military crisis management tools – in support of a single political strategy.”

That means in future there’d unlikely be a Gulf War without all 27 member states marching in; no action against a Gaza blockade unless all 27 can mobilise a consensus of action; and where decisions are taken, a timely and knotty process if those decisions are to be reversed. Britain’s interests will have to be subservient to the greater consensus, and equally, our interests will also become the indirect property of the other 26 countries.

I have argued that as a nation we should be seeking greater integration with the Commonwealth rather than pursuing political unity on a geographical basis. Developing a diverse, culturally and ethically, peaceful and geographically and ecologically disparate collective of nations underpinned by a common language and model of democracy, is surely more strategically conducive to harmony and world peace, than huge geographical expanses. Less than 50 years ago suspicions were aroused by Russia’s accumulation of satellite states and her potential might, leading to ripples of apocalyptic fear across the Atlantic and beyond. Yet what is being constructed in Brussels today far eclipses the pocket of Eastern European associates behind the Iron Curtain. All that differs is dotted lines rather than warpaths have etched in the borders of containment.

The commonly held belief is that there is rhetoric and there is reality, and in reality the big EU member states are not likely to relinquish control of foreign policy as a sovereign right anytime soon.

Yet we have seen but a year’s worth of a foetal External Action Service and while the European Parliament forced a resolution stating it should complement, rather than replace, national diplomatic services, it is hard to see how once established, the foreign element of the EU, answering the long-asked Kissinger question “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” won’t duplicate, undermine and ultimately subsume member states’ foreign affairs. If not, why on earth has it even been created?

In the concluding words of Baroness Ashton’s speech to Parliament on July 7:

“Honourable Members,

Europe needs the External Action Service to build a stronger foreign policy. We need an integrated platform to project European values and interests around the world. It is time to give ourselves the means to realise our ambitions.”