EU foreign policy: internal reforms vs. external challenges

The report on the future of Europe fails to provide an adequate answer to global challenges and power shifts on the world stage. Prof. Dr. Gärtner argues that the EU will need an effective common foreign and security policy, equipped to respond to different situations like the crisis in the Middle East, the political unrest in North Africa, climate change, and more. Austria has shown that, despite being one of the smaller countries in the EU, it is possible to make specific, valuable contributions.

The foreign ministers of eleven EU-member states issued a report on the future of Europe. The participating ministers underline that the report reflects their personal thoughts and that not all of them agree with all their proposals. It is a commendable effort. It goes without saying that in the midst of the financial and budgetary crisis their main concern is strengthening of the Economic and Monetary Union. In a surprisingly frank way the report speaks of a "Euro crisis". The foreign ministers are optimistic that the overall functioning of the EU can be improved once this crisis has been overcome.

In particular, the EU should take decisive steps to "strengthen its act on the world stage". The report concentrates on proposals for internal reform. They include a revision of the decision on the European External Action Service; more majority decisions in the CFSP; the strengthening of the Commission; and a system of a separation of powers with a directly elected Commission president, a "European Government" and the European Parliament. These are all important considerations - although some might find some of them controversial. They do not answer the real problems, however. Unfortunately, the report does not address the global challenges for the EU.

The report correctly states that the Common Security and Defense Policy has to go beyond "pooling and sharing". But further than that, it has to look at the global changes and challenges and ask what contributions Europe can make to cope with them. There is a global "power transition" going on. The USA will remain world power number one although not in the sense of a global hegemon. The world will not be multipolar but there will be multiple centres with shared global responsibilities. The future world can be liberal or led by an autocratic power. There can be a concert of powers based on rules and principles or chaos. The challenges are global, so have to be the solutions. What does Europe have to say to this power change on the world stage? How will it respond?

Europe will be measured on what political and military capabilities it can provide to solve global problems. This includes regional crises like the Middle East, Iran's nuclear program, the rise of the political Islam in North Africa, but also proposals on climate change and pandemics. Also, the EU and it's member states have to show the world that they take the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Protection of Civilians (POC) seriously in case of massive human rights violations and develop criteria to do so. The Obama administration sees the mission in Libya as a successful US-European cooperation. The USA does not care who makes the contribution, the EU, NATO or their member states. It goes without saying that the member states can act more efficiently if they coordinate with others. What counts is what they do, however.

Austria is a small member of the EU and can make only small but specific contributions. These are increasingly global, however. Very successful are Austria's missions in the Western-Balkans in the framework of the EU and NATO-PfP. Valuable were its operations as part of the EU and the UN missions in Chad. Austria also might support an ECOWAS-UN-EU mission in Mali and help to destroy the chemical weapons in the post-al-Assad Syria.

Austria's neutrality is sometimes seen as an obstacle for its participation in the CFSP. Quite the opposite is true. Neutrality can be an asset in international missions. It signals that the mediators or soldiers of neutral states are not aligned with a big power. This played for example a role in the Chad mission when the commander of the Austrian contingent was assigned commander of the entire Special Forces. Lt. General Patrick Nash of neutral Ireland was the EU operation commander. The involvement of neutral states should demonstrate that the mission was independent of the French government. It goes without saying that there is no neutrality in the case of human rights violation and suppression.

The proposals of the report to reform the EU inside are important and helpful for the future CFSP, but they should not be seen as a prerequisite or even replacement for doing something in the outside world.

Prof. Dr. Heinz Gärtner is academic director at the Austrian Institute for International Affairs and senior scientist at the University of Vienna. He is Lecturer at the National Defense Academy and at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna, Austria.