Union needs a public review of CFSP

By Giovanni Grevi

Date: 16/12/04

THE common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the European Union has made great strides in 2004 at both the institutional and operational level.

But one year after the European Council adopted a European Security Strategy, a Europe-wide political debate on the performance of the Union in world affairs is still missing.

Progress on civilian and military capabilities is a precondition for action. New bodies and procedures to enhance joint decision-making should be welcomed.

Weapon systems and governance frameworks, however, are no substitute for well-defined, long-term strategic goals and the political will to pursue them together.

The security strategy should trigger political debate and fuel political will.

The strategy that Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy, delivered was unprecedented, in that it outlined in clear terms what the Union stands for in international relations.

And yet, although solemnly agreed by 25 heads of state and government and celebrated by most experts and practitioners, the strategy has not penetrated public debate. It has gone largely unnoticed in political discussions taking place at national level.

Considering the high level of popular support for boosting the profile of the Union in international relations, notably in security matters, this is paradoxical. But, in the absence of a public debate on the direction of the CFSP and of its achievements and failures, there is little incentive for politicians to overcome the comfortable national reflex and to define a common approach to the most sensitive issues.

With the exception of those critical junctures when decisions about war and peace are to the fore, national leaders manage CFSP in a void of democratic accountability. The powers of the European Parliament in foreign affairs, although growing, are still essentially limited to information and consultation.

National parliaments are involved in foreign policymaking to different degrees. They rarely, if ever, debate CFSP.

Political will, however, does not grow on trees. It can come only from serious political debate, with the involvement of representatives elected at the national and the European levels.

If there were greater democratic accountability, it would help to redress the lack of political will to drive CFSP.

The security strategy provides an excellent platform to stage a public political debate across Europe. It is regarded as an instrument of 'public diplomacy' towards third countries and other international actors - a 'mission statement' defining the fundamental values and objectives of the Union.

There is no reason why the strategy should not be used to trigger domestic debate in EU member states and a process should be set up to assess the performance of the Union in foreign, security and defence policy, as well as the interplay between these policies and other strands of EU external action, such as trade and development.

Every two years, an inter-institutional task force should prepare a report assessing the state of play of the EU's CFSP.

The security strategy would provide the best benchmark to conduct this exercise. A limited set of strategic goals can easily be extrapolated from the body of the text. In close cooperation with an increasingly active trans-national community of experts, the task force could select a range of indicators and provide members of parliament and the public at large with the means to hold a meaningful discussion on the role of the Union in the world, and its accomplishments.

National assemblies and the Parliament should hold special sessions dedicated to debating CFSP and should send policy recommendations to the European Council.

The latter should take these recommendations into consideration when outlining the priorities for the Council and the Commission, and instructing the high representative/ foreign minister to act accordingly.

This process would have the merit of strengthening inter-institutional cooperation, paving the way for a joint diplomatic service of the Union and highlighting the links between different aspects of the external policies of the Union.

Narrowing the gap between national politics and EU decision-making, moreover, would make a concrete contribution to bringing the Union closer to the people.

Internal and external policies are increasingly interlinked, and security is defined in broad terms, going well beyond the military dimension to include sustainable development and the root causes of the threats that Europe is confronted with.

EU CFSP is definitely a matter for public debate and not one for secretive exchanges.

The best way to celebrate the first anniversary of the EU security strategy would be to launch a public review of the performance of the Union in the world, leading up to the European Council in December 2005.

• Giovanni Grevi is associate director of studies of the European Policy Centre and coordinator of Ideas Factory Europe. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Author says that in spite of substantial progress in the field of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as well as the high level of popular support for it, there has hardly been a public debate on it. He suggests that national assemblies and the European Parliament should hold special sessions dedicated to debating CFSP and should send policy recommendations to the European Council.