Tim Mahon
At an informal meeting of European defence ministers in Ireland just a week ago, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas – High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and President of the Foreign Affairs Council – announced the formation of a new advisory body that would bring together political and military leaders to assist in crafting a new approach to European defence. “The aim is to have some of the brightest minds on security and defence come together and really provide out-of-the-box solutions on how we can be faster in fulfilling these gaps and how we can be more effective,” she said during a press conference at the time.
Fast forward one week and the initiative is dead. Not, as some observers of the European scene might assume, as a result of inertia or incompetence: it was slaughtered in cold blood after strong opposition from member states. Those who were invited to the group’s launch event, scheduled to take place in Brussels on Monday 7 September, learned of its demise the previous afternoon.
Several member states were vigorously opposed to the initiative. Not, it appears, for fear of it being a decision-making body – it had a purely advisory brief – but because it was apparently the wrong path to take. That motivation in and of itself vividly illustrates one of the endemic weaknesses of today’s European Union: it is apparently better and ‘the right path’ to stifle and kill any initiatives not subjected to the hellish crucible of achieving consensus than it is to spend any time at all trying to actually do something. The question of how to strengthen European defence capabilities at a pace that will make a difference – the very issue the now dead group was designed to address – remains open. Meanwhile potential adversaries find it difficult to avoid showing their teeth in smiles, while allies roll their eyes in frustration.
Kallas’ initiative was a worthy one and followed her installation of new leadership in the European External Action Service (EEAS – the EU’s principal foreign policy body) to shore up her position, which is under pressure from internal actors. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has continually sought greater influence over the Union’s foreign policy and a recent Franco-German proposal suggests the EEAS come under direct presidential control.
If we are to win the battle for the hearts and minds of Europe’s citizens; if we are to successfully ‘reboot’ European defence capability in a timeframe that matters; if we are to deter potential aggressors by demonstrating cohesive collective policies – then we need to do something – anything – that starts the ball rolling. Increasingly, regrettably, the lack of ability to agree among member states on just about anything is making achievement of any or all of those objectives moot.
In desperation I am off to re-read Pericles and Plato – arguably among the original progenitors of a European polity. Anything rather than watch good initiatives implode; even if it had been revealed to have flaws, the group could have been corrected, modified, reconstituted. But it seems it is preferable to kill initiative than to try to change it once it has opened Pandora’s box, in some minds.
Headline image: Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and President of the Foreign Affairs Council (Consilium of the EU)
