Danjean: “The EU represents a good level to come up with an efficient common approach” | WPN World People News

Events in Ukraine have underlined the relevance of a common and coherent EU external policy. The European External Action Service (EAAS) was created as a diplomatic corps in 2011 to help the EU have a structured and coordinated external policy. But how well is it working? Arnaud Danjean, a French member of the EPP group, wrote a report with recommendations, which MEPs adopted on 3 April. We asked him about the challenges and benefits of the EU having a common foreign policy.

How can we have a common and coherent foreign policy when the member states’ interests vary so much?

The challenges of our era are more and more global, more and more complex, and single member states rarely possesses the diplomatic, financial and military means to face them all by themselves. Therefore it is at the EU level that we will be able to have an efficient common approach. But even if the EU is not able to act always and everywhere, it is vital that we redefine the EEAS according to clearly defined priorities. We also need stronger political leadership in order to reach consensus.

In your resolution you state that institutional weaknesses have prevented the EU from undertaking coherent measures as part of its foreign policy. How can we overcome this?

Every time the EU launches a mission as part of its common security and defence policy, we face the same problems and constraints in the coordination and planning, in the logistical support and in the coherence of the directives.

When several organisations are involved – which is inevitable in a global approach – coordination is key. Ideally this should happen in a less formal way, like a natural reflex, but we have to stay realistic. Every institution tends to defend its own independence. Therefore we will have to impose coordination and establish a clear leadership and better defined roles. From my point of view, the High Representative, who is also the vice-president of the European Commission, should take the reins.

Do you find that mediation and dialogue are effective to prevent and peacefully resolve situation such as the crisis in Ukraine?

To be honest, I haven't found Europe’s diplomatic action in cases such as the crisis in Ukraine, totally convincing. The difficulties linked to the Association Agreement were severely underestimated, and then there was a period of mediation efforts without any significant political impact. It was only when foreign affairs ministers acted, that the EU initiatives became more focussed and efficient. This shows member states continue to dominate in foreign politics, even if the efforts of the High Representative and the EEAS are useful. But they only support the decisions and mediations for which member states take the lead. We should also understand that mediation and prevention only makes sense and only carries weight if the EU is considered credible when it comes to threats and sanctions.

Source: European Parliament