LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Spring 2008

by Angelika Beer

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

Sir,
The recent history of the Reform Treaty says a lot about the way the European Union works. We drop the ambitious title “constitution”, but keep much of the content of the old treaty. Every word has to meet with everyone’s approval, so the process is slow. That’s just how it is. Yet, step by step, the Union manages to align national policies in areas that were never dreamed of by its founding fathers and mothers. Why, then, does foreign policy remain so obstinately outside the European fold?

The answer seems to lie within the national sensitivities over international relations that are felt by member states. Recent actions by France over the latest EU military mission to Africa is a classic example of what I call “national hijacking” of our supposed Common Foreign and Security Policy.

France has long-standing ties with Chad − and troops on the ground − but wanted to expand EU engagement as violence in Darfur overflowed into neighbouring countries. The UN Security Council authorized the EU to send up to 4,000 troops to help protect hundreds of thousands of civilians in eastern Chad and north eastern Central African Republic. However, despite the new force’s European Security and Defence Policy name-tag, France still dominates the mission. Paris is expected to provide at least half of all the troops; the operation commander may be Irish, but the force commander is French and their headquarters are in France. Neither the mandate for EUFOR Chad-CAR nor the circumstances of its operation has been clearly set out. Yet they will come up against unfathomable rebel groups, paramilitary organisations and local soldiers in a deeply volatile part of Africa. This is typical of the way the EU reacts ad hoc to international crises: a short-term strategy is devised at the behest of a single country. This is not a proper common foreign policy.

But does any one country deserve particular blame for paying only lip-service to the CFSP? I think not. The search for common ground within Europe’s divergent national foreign policies is, after all, almost as old as the European Community itself. The 2003 European Security Strategy marked a limited step toward defining Europe’s common interests and capabilities. But it does not excuse member states from working on a more coherent strategy. In a globalised world, with all its challenges and conflicts, the need for Europe to speak in one voice is more urgent than ever.

Thierry Chopin makes many valid points about French attitudes towards the European Union in his article. Clearly, Nicolas Sarkozy began to see the EU as another play ground for French interests immediately he became president. This was bound to irritate other member states. However, we must ask if France is so very different from other EU nations in this regard. For example, neither Poland nor the Czech Republic works within an EU framework when talking about a missile defence shield. Poland and Britain both shun the Charter on fundamental human rights. In the Balkans, the EU has missed its chance to unite behind a single policy and looks set to run into the next crisis.

Chopin says France has to define its relationship towards the EU. I would argue that many member states still have to do that – maybe even all of them.