Does EU have foreign policy?
Of course, EU is a powerful international actor and has clear external policy toward other actor. However, it is questionable that EU have the complexity of foreign policy as belong to the state. As we have discussed here, there are some scholars treated EU as state while other treated it as regional organization, empire or custom union. This controversy leads us to ask: does the concept of foreign policy is only belong to the state. This article will elaborate on both camps: camps support the idea that EU have foreign policy and the opposite camp that EU doesn’t have foreign policy. The application of the debate will be introduced further.
This article doesn’t assume that the debate is narrowly on whether EU and other international organization can be entitled to the term of foreign policy. Hungarian government use officially the term external relation for their ministry of foreign affairs. External relation or foreign policy are interchangeable but they denotes a complex and comprehensive apparatus that many actors rarely have.
EU is a foreign policy actor
There are three major reasons why EU can be said as foreign policy actor:
1. EU is a sovereign actor
Constitutionally, EU is a sovereign actor. In Lisbon treaty, it is mentioned that “The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area” (Consolidated version, 2010). Ratification of Lisbon Treaty has impacted to the presence of EU international legal personality and legal sovereignty. Practically, EU is sovereign over member states. There are four arguments (Smith, 2002), as follows: (1) the impact of EU to domestic and international partners can’t be ignored, (2) members states have surrendered their sovereignty partly, such as in trade, (3) even member states haven’t abrogated sovereignty to EU, they have allowed the Union, on many issues and with their participation, to take and implement decisions on their behalf and (4) the Union exercises sovereignty, not as something separate from the member states but as something that provides an addition to member state activities in international affairs.
2. The transformatory power of EU
EU shall not be viewed as merely subordinate actor of member states. “In practical terms, the European Union does not act independently of the member states but neither is it either instrument of or subordinate to member states.” (Smith, 2002, p.3). There are two step on how EU transform member states’ policies: (1) when it comes to find the commonalities, member states are changing their position and persuading their counter parts in order to find the desirable outcome. (2) Once it has agreed, member states must adjust their initial policy to the agreed policy.
3. EU foreign ministries
EU have complex set of decision-making procedures with a central executive that is not one person but rather a group of people – the European Council and the European Commission. Decision-making procedures are clearly spelt out in the various legislation that underpins the Union in which the powers of the executive authority of the Union are also recognised. European External Action Service (EEAS) gives stronger punch on EU diplomacy across the world.
EU is not a foreign policy actor
But there are many IR theorists also says that foreign policy is exclusive. Why? Because only state that can support comprehensively the implementation of foreign policy.
Bruter (1999) argues that there are some inherent limitation in making EU delegation achieve their mission. Firstly, there is no clear guidance of what EU embassies should do. EU delegation has legitimate voice in the field of trade, development-related aid, humanitarian help, environment, technical and scientific co-operation, and economic development. However, they have to manage several issues which not in their competence such as political and security issues. A research in major Mexican daily papers (cited in Bruter, 1999) confirmed that the delegation and its head were often perceived by the local media as representatives of the entire EU or even of Europe in general.
Secondly, EU delegation’s budget is far more than expected. “There are fewer people working for European institutions than for the administration of Paris and its 2 million citizens.” (Bruter, 1999, p.187). Thirdly, EU’s diplomacy is without a head of state. Ambassador is traditionally representative of head of state. Who is the head of state of EU? Council President, Commission President or High Representative? Lastly, there is a lack of professional diplomats in EU delegations. There is no clear standard in selecting the diplomats to be positioned abroad.
Bruter rightly said that “They [EU delegation] are deprived of a unique, powerful head of state, strong administration, unified political positions to defend and promote, and a common diplomatic ‘culture’” (Bruter, 1999, p.193).
However, Aggarwal and Fogarty (2004) argues that EU can use trade as the basis of European influence in the world. Since trade policy already aggregates the member states into a coherent unit, and the basis of European influence in the world is more economic than political, the EU can best punch its weight in international politics by granting and/or restricting access to the large and rich European market. Even if a coherent CFSP does arise, it does not necessarily augur an immediate rise in Europe’s political influence (not to mention military power) around the world; as long as Europe remains a “civilian power,” commercial policy will be its primary means of international political influence.
​
​
​
​
​