By Robert Tyler, a political strategist, working for a European political party
During the past couple of weeks, the European Union has made a number of important foreign policy moves. Whilst on the surface, it may look as if its “foreign policy” department, the “European External Action Service” (EEAS), is finally painting a clear picture of the EU’s approach to international affairs, between the broad strokes, the paint is already beginning to crack, while the canvas surrounding it is already showing signs of wear and tear.
One recent initiative is the EU’s strategy paper on a new ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy’. The document, like similar recent releases, focuses on a number of big topics, such as climate change, labour rights, and the rule of law. However, it overlooks that when it comes to delivering on its policy priorities, the European Union disposes of weaker instruments as compared to the United States. The relative trade importance of the European Union for a country rife with human rights abuses, like Myanmar or the Philippines, is lower than that of the United States.
Also, the EU has been guilty of an arbitrary application of its policy goals in the region. At the start of the year, whilst working on the details of the – now frozen – “Comprehensive Agreement on Investment” (CAI) between the EU and China, the European Commission downplayed the importance of labour regulations, whilst at the same time pressing a legal challenge against South Korea over “labour commitments”.
The stability and defence aspects of the EU’s new ‘Indo-Pacific’ Strategy also reflect a distinct lack of resources. The EEAS desires greater action in the region as part of the EU’s ‘Common Security and Defence Policy’, but nevertheless pushes for an independent EU approach, instead of working with other democracies that have a more established presence and experience in the region, like Australia, the United States, Japan and South Korea.
This reflects what commentators have dubbed the ‘Sinatra Doctrine’, following the announcement by EU High Representative Josep Borrell (picture) that the EU would be adopting a ‘My Way Approach’ to international relations.
The reality is that whilst the EEAS is spending its time moving imaginary pieces across the world map, Europe itself is increasingly becoming a playing field of foreign powers.
China’s push for an investment agreement really is a calculated attempt to increase the balance of exports to consumers in the EU, with the ultimate goal to overrun the market and control it. Whether that is a feasible strategy in the first place is questionable. European consumers will in the end profit from more competition from China, but in Bejing, these trade deals are definitely seen in a more strategic and less economic perspective.
Equally, Russia’s push to complete the “Nord Stream II” pipeline isn’t inspired by a mere desire to sell more gas to Western Europe, thereby helping them to support the transition from coal. Its priority is mainly to try to circumvent Eastern European countries, to increase Moscow’s political leverage over the region.
Iran’s attempts to reignite the Iran nuclear deal or JCPOA are all about lifting sanctions in a bid to allow French and European car manufacturers back into the country and to boost the export of Iranian oil to Europe. Obviously, trade is a good idea, but surely when European security is threatened by Iran, which has stepped up enriching of uranium to dangerous levels, the latter should receive priority, certainly when an Iranian diplomat has just been criminally convicted in Belgium for plotting to commit a terrorist bomb attack against an Iranian opposition rally outside Paris. Despite all this, during the ongoing JCPOA negotiations, the EU is playing a largely passive role.
For years, the Palestinian Authority has been using EU aid funds to spread anti-Israeli propaganda, through purchasing school textbooks that preach anti-Semitism. Last week, the European Parliament did decide to sharpen up its scrutiny of this, but it’s all going very slowly. Also, according to one estimate, during the last ten years, the EU alone allocated at least 38 million euro to projects involving terror-linked NGOs in Palestine.
Furthermore, it took until 2013 for the EU to put Lebanese terror group Hezbollah on a terrorism list, but until today, its ‘political wing’ really continues to escape sanctions, as the EU distinguishes between its ‘armed wing’ and its ‘political movement’, a distinction which Hezbollah itself publicly rejects.
Last but not least, there’s the increasingly worrying and well-documented role Russia, China and Turkey are playing to stir up trouble in the Balkans. Despite the EU’s great financial engagements there, it continues to fail to offer a realistic arrangement for these shaky democracies that would both enjoy support of EU citizens and not demotivate the Balkans. An example could be to push for a mini-Schengen or more regional economic opening between the six Balkan countries that aren’t an EU member state. Despite similar initiatives coming from some of the “Balkan six”, the EU has not properly backed this.
All too often, hostile powers have found in the European Union’s foreign policy machinery a gullible partner willing to support them, on the naive basis that they would be trusted partners. Despite criticism from national governments and sometimes MEPs, not much is changing.
National capitals aren’t perfect but they generally have better instincts on foreign policy. No one should doubt that the Dutch Navy knows what it is doing when deploying its ships to join the British Carrier Group heading to the Pacific. Likewise, no eurocrat should be undermining the Polish or Baltic governments when it comes to countering the threat from Russia.
The pandemic and the distraction it brought has further enabled the EU to experiment with developing its own, go-it-alone “EU foreign policy”, as witnessed not only by Sofagate but also by Borrell in his clumsy press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister. As long as the EU lacks the ability to act on its own – something which may take a long time – it should continue to align everything it does not only with EU member states but also with its strategic partners and democratic allies, in particular the United States.
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
