The European Union, a supranational organization established in stages after the Second World War under the name of the “European Project” in order to make future conflicts practically impossible, took an important step towards this goal of establishing a federal structure and established the Common Foreign and Security Policy with the Maastricht Treaty that entered into force in 1993. The organization established the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 and this post was expanded and strengthened to the Vice-Presidency of the Commission with the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. The 2004 Constitutional Treaty provided for the creation of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the organization, but this was not created due to the rejection of the Treaty by France and the Netherlands in 2005.[1]
The Commission is seen as the authority representing the EU abroad. In addition, the President of the Council has important responsibilities in this respect. The Commission’s budget for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is also used for civil affairs and disarmament processes where necessary within the Commission, with a major role for the Foreign Policy Service, advised by the European External Action Service. The High Representative also manages the coherence and function of the EU’s foreign policy and acts as a bridge between external and internal balances. The post is still relatively new and many researchers have criticized the officials appointed to the post as low-profile. The office is of course open to criticism because of its newness. But it is clear that what is called the Common Foreign and Security Policy is not common. While there is some common rhetoric and tasks on issues where all EU states have similar policies, the current situation has the potential to tarnish the reputation of an organization that calls itself supranational.
The biggest example of these missions is Operation Atalanta. This mission is called the European Union Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) Somalia and was created to combat maritime piracy in the Indian Ocean off the Horn of Africa.[2] This is an example that can be carried out by any security organization if they find common ground. Therefore, with such examples, it cannot be claimed that the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy is functioning as expected.
The biggest example of this argument is the attitude of the European Union countries in the Russia-Ukraine War. The European Union, which has imposed sanctions against Russia since the beginning of the war, is experiencing contradictions and dilemmas within itself due to its dependence on Russia for its energy needs. In addition to this, even though a stance against Russia is taken in the discourse, Slavic-majority countries such as Hungary and Slovakia, in particular, have not expressed their support for sanctions at the levels emphasized in the organization. Hungary, in particular, differed from the other countries by vetoing the 50 million euros in aid to Ukraine earlier this year. [3] In the end, a summit was organized in Brussels to convince Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and this aid was provided. This example shows how far the organization is from being a partner, especially in terms of foreign policy.
In addition, the discourse of EU countries varies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. While humanitarian missions and common rhetoric against banditry, disinformation and organized crime are important, the inability of the organization to take a common stance in important events that concern the whole world, such as the Russian-Ukrainian War and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, implies that the European Union is no different from any other organization on this issue.
In such a situation, unanimity in adopting decisions on important security and foreign affairs is another issue that hinders the common foreign and security policy. The different interests, political cultures and views of countries in foreign policy make unanimity largely impossible. The biggest reason for this is seen as the national sovereignty concerns of the countries. The concept of national sovereignty, which has been seen as a problem throughout the European Union Integration process, is still an obstacle for the EU in its goal of establishing a federal structure.[4]
In general, and not only in foreign and security policy, sanctions for disagreement in the European Union are mild. They take the form of fines and lawsuits against countries that take actions that are incompatible with their values. But more precise and decisive sanctions are important in this respect. It can be said that the medium and small states within the member states have used the European Union for economic development and to have a voice in the international arena. The interests are mutual, but the European Union is already making concessions at a high level. Hungary, Poland under the previous government and Slovakia are among them. There is currently no expulsion procedure against states that constantly express their disagreement with different rhetoric and are perceived to want to use the EU as a tool for development and reputation, except for the suspension of membership in case of serious violations. This suspension also requires a majority vote, which is enough to make the situation uncertain. Therefore, taking the UK as an example, for a country to leave the European Union, it would have to initiate these withdrawal procedures itself.
This is a major problem for the European Union, which at the end of the day desires a federal structure. Ultimately, the lack of harsh and dissuasive sanctions such as expulsion from membership in case of non-compliance with values and policies in order to create a federal structure hinders this process. But the European Union is building the “European Project” slowly and step by step. It took 50 years for the organization to become a legal entity in 2009 with the Lisbon Treaty. This shows how slow and consensual the process has been. However, while the creation of deterrent sanctions has the potential to go against EU principles in the name of consent, the slow pace of this process can also lead to deepening disagreements within the organization, potentially leading to fragmentation. Germany’s recent resumption of border control is a case in point. Therefore, establishing a common foreign and security policy within a federal structure is a long and arduous process. But even with the possibility of changes of government, the process lacks hope and the slower it slows down, the more fragmented it becomes within the organization. It is therefore unclear whether the European Union can withstand all this.
[1] “European Union Border Assistance Mission in Rafah, What is EU Foreign Policy”, European Union External Action, https://eubam-rafah.eu/en/node/5063, (Date Accession: 17.12.2024).
[2] “EU Naval Force Operation ATALANTA”, European Union External Action, https://eunavfor.eu, (Date Accession: 17.12.2024).
[3] Liboreiro, Jorge (2024), “It has gone very far: ‘EU countries voice exasperation over Hungary’s vetoes on Ukraine aid, euronews., https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/27/it-has-gone-very-far-eu-countries-voice-exasperation-over-hungarys-vetoes-on-ukraine-aid, (Date Accession: 17.12.2024).
[4] Taechau, Jan, “The Fiva Structural Problems of EU Foreign Policy”, Security Politics in Asia and Europe, s. 73-86, https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=d69ffdb0-3aa3-a7b2-2e8d-67bd2f5868a0&groupId=252038, (Date Accession: 17.12.2024).
