BRUSSELS – The European Union is facing increasing pressure to fundamentally reform its foreign policy amid a series of high-profile failures, notably its struggles to secure funding for Ukraine and its disjointed response to the ongoing conflict in Iran. This growing dissatisfaction among EU diplomats, officials, and lawmakers has sparked discussions about a comprehensive overhaul of the Union’s diplomatic framework.
Systemic paralysis exposed
The EU’s fragmented decision-making processes have been laid bare, particularly evident in its inability to approve a €90 billion loan for Ukraine, impose sanctions on violent settlers in the West Bank, and execute measures targeting Russia. These challenges highlight a deeper systemic paralysis that has left the bloc operating inefficiently, according to insights from nine EU diplomats and experts.
As geopolitical tensions escalate, with the Middle East crisis worsening and the war in Ukraine continuing unabated, the EU risks marginalizing itself at a critical moment when decisive action is imperative. The urgency for change has prompted a coalition of countries, led by Germany and Sweden, to advocate for the elimination or significant limitation of national vetoes, which currently enable a single member state to halt collective action.
“We should abolish the unanimity principle in the EU in foreign and security policy before the end of the current legislative period so as to be better capable of acting internationally and to be truly grown-up,” stated German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, emphasizing the need for reform based on recent experiences with aid and sanctions.
Debate on decision-making reforms
In a similar vein, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson indicated that the topic of employing qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions would be revisited among EU leaders. This discussion has gained momentum particularly as Hungary has stalled critical decisions, including the aforementioned loan to Kyiv, raising concerns that domestic political agendas are undermining EU foreign policy effectiveness.
Spanish Socialist lawmaker Nacho Sánchez Amor expressed his frustration over the prevailing decision-making deadlock, asserting, “There are serious problems in how we take decisions. Every month there’s a new issue that highlights this trend. We have to react.”
Contrarily, some member states, including France and Belgium, are steadfast in defending the veto right, viewing it as essential to their national interests. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever cautioned that initiating a debate on unanimity rules could lead to significant complications.
A senior EU official expressed frustration regarding the EU’s sanctions policy, stating, “Look at the sanctions on the West Bank settlers — it’s a total disaster,” referring to the failure to implement measures supported by the majority due to Hungary’s opposition. This sentiment underscores a widespread acknowledgment among EU officials that the current system is failing to respond effectively to pressing issues.
Internal tensions within the EU have further fueled this perception of ineffectiveness. Conflicts over leadership roles in foreign policy between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reflect deeper issues that need addressing. However, observers indicate that these disputes are symptoms of a larger problem rather than the root cause of the inefficacy.
As discussions progress, informal high-level conversations among key member states are exploring potential reforms to enhance the prominence of foreign policy in ambassador-level meetings and to improve the decision-making capabilities of the European External Action Service (EEAS).
Despite the ongoing dialogue, many believe that the key barrier to effective EU foreign policy is the requirement for unanimity. A senior diplomat highlighted the stark contrast in decision-making dynamics within different EU councils, arguing that while energy policy decisions can be made by majority vote, foreign policy remains shackled by the consensus requirement.
Proposals for restructuring the EU’s foreign policy framework are emerging, with suggestions to replace the foreign policy chief with an “EU foreign minister” and to establish a European Security Council that would incorporate external partners like the UK and Norway. Some experts advocate integrating the EEAS into the Commission to streamline decision-making processes.
Despite the challenges, there is a growing recognition that without significant reforms, the EU’s ability to respond to global challenges will remain compromised. “The basic problem has not changed, the basic problem of foreign policy is unanimity,” remarked a senior diplomat, stressing the need for a change in the current framework to enable more effective action.