The EU must scrap unanimity to unlock its superpower potential [Promoted content]

The EU is losing its relative significance at the global stage every day; while we have the potential to be a superpower, it must be unlocked by necessary reforms, such as moving to qualified-majority voting in foreign affairs, according to Dr Federiga Bindi, expert on the EU’s foreign policy at a Citizens’ Panel of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE).

Interview with Dr Federiga Bindi, Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Rome Tor Vergata and Fellow, University of Colorado at Boulder.

What prevents the EU from playing a greater role at the global stage?

The challenge has been always the same since the EU’s origin – having the Member States realise they matter in global affairs only if they speak with a single voice. Individually, no matter how big they are, they are insignificant at the world stage. The problem is that in the EU, we have competing interests, competing visions of what matters, and even competing perceptions of geopolitical realities. There is a lot of egoism in it, with the member states unwilling to give up any little part of their power.

We lost a huge opportunity when Barack Obama came to power. At that time, Philip H. Gordon was Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs within the Obama’s administration. When we were setting up the position of EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR/VP), Gordon asked the capitals if they would have liked to continue talking with the US bilaterally or multilaterally – via the EU. It turned out the member states were not ready to sacrifice their bilateral channels and empower the HR/VP. Afterwards, the Trump administration created a global political vacuum that the EU could have filled, but instead, we just sat and waited.

As a result, we have little influence. For instance, the security matters between the US and Russia are being arranged completely over our heads, despite the Americans insisting that we are being consulted. There is little the HR/VP can do if the capitals go behind his back. We still have the potential to become a superpower, but we must first unlock it with necessary reforms.

As the relative importance of the EU is waning over time, can this predicament get the EU member states closer together, pushing them to rethink their approach and align politically?

I wish it would, but in reality nobody wants to admit at the higher political level that individual member states are insignificant. Diplomats may all agree at the policy level this is the case, but very few of them go up to the noble floors of foreign ministries to share their observations with the ministers who like to indulge in the illusions that their countries are powerful.

What in your opinion could be the major first steps to overcome these problems, especially given the ongoing CoFoE?

The first reform should be moving from unanimity to qualified-majority voting (QMV) in the Council of the EU. As long as one country can block decisions, we will always go with the lowest common denominator. Historically, the EU has always benefitted from moving away from unanimous decision-making in different areas.

With my students, we often do an exercise: we imagine we are going to eat out together, but we all have to eat exactly the same thing. Eventually, we end up drinking water because there is no way to agree on something that we all are OK eating. Getting rid of unanimity is the number one priority in foreign and security policy, and it would be wishful thinking to assume we can improve anything without this step.

What about the other side of the CFSP coin – security and defence? There is a popular proposal on the CoFoE DIgital Platform about establishing an EU army – is this feasible in the current political circumstance?

In terms of their individual military potential, even the strongest EU member states like France have puny armies compared to the rest of the world. In addition, maintaining separate armed forces is a huge waste of money.

My feeling is that it is politicians opposing further EU integration in defence rather than military personnel. The reality is that our armed forces, at least at the leadership level, are already highly integrated. Their commanders genuinely talk to each other and work together. Still, we need more integration on the lower levels and this could be solved through a military Erasmus. At the civilian level, Eramus has changed Europe more than anything else – if we can do the same with the military, we can transform the EU sociologically and culturally.

The CoFoE proposals on scrapping unanimity or establishing an EU army are likely to be vetoed by some member states seeing them as limiting their individual powers. Is there a way to circumvent this opposition while trying to implement the proposals?

If these proposals stick and are supported by the last CoFoE Plenary, and then the capitals just trash them – then why have we been doing all this? The member states would lose their credibility in such a case. Historically, getting rid of unanimity has been really hard but it’s worth fighting for, so we can maintain our global significance as Europe.

Do you think there is a way to achieve strategic autonomy, as proposed by President Macron, without changing the Treaties and giving the EU competences in foreign and security policy, as recommended during CoFoE?

I don’t. Unless we switch to qualified-majority voting, I don’t see how we can be strategic. As long as our focus is reaching the lowest common denominator in foreign and security affairs, we can’t be strategic. If Macron is re-elected, he will be in a good position to push for Treaty changes. He will be the eldest leader in power with nothing to lose, just like François Mitterrand in his second term who chose Europe as his primary focus. If Italy keeps its pro-European course, they should support it as well. A lot will be at play in the next couple of months

We have talked a lot about the role of powerful men in politics. How has the role of women been changing in the EU’s foreign affairs?

Having worked on academic books on the EU’s external affairs and the role of women in foreign policy, I’m not entirely sure that women have been able to change the status quo. There are cases of women making a difference in foreign affairs. For instance, Hillary Clinton put the issue of women rights and gender parity on the table. In the EU, the first two HR/VPs were women: Catherine Ashton and Federica Mogherini. Has that really made the difference or, rather, has that been used to blame the failures of the EU foreign policy on them instead of on the member states?

One of the major problems here is that women don’t help each other in foreign affairs, as elsewhere. At the moment, we have a number of strong women leaders who can make things better individually, but it doesn’t really translate into a whole movement. Let’s see if having Ursula von der Leyen in and Roberta Metsola in charge of the top EU institutions can change that.

Source: euractiv.com