The EU seems determined to act like an ostrich, burying its head under mountains of foreign policy declarations. But while most EU governments pay lip service to the idea of creating a common foreign and security policy, they fail to address a key stumbling block -- the fact that power, and the ability to project power, is distributed unequally across the member states.
Far from acknowledging this reality, EU members -- old and new, big and small -- insist on having an equal say in foreign policy decisions. The EU's unanimity rule remains the preferred means for decision-making in this field, although some limited exceptions are discussed.
True, consensus is important, because it provides credibility and legitimacy. But the reality is that some EU members are "more equal" than others, and the union's more powerful members invariably resent external constraints. The same applies to other international organizations. Indeed, a root of the Bush administration's diminished interest in NATO can probably be found in the interventions of small countries in military decisions -- such as the choice of bombing targets -- during the Kosovo war.
The reality of who actually possesses power in Europe has given rise to movement toward the creation of a foreign policy "triumvirate" comprising France, Germany and the UK -- something the leaders of the three countries will invariably discuss when they meet next week. In terms of population, GDP, commercial and diplomatic outreach, culture and military clout, these countries indisputably form Europe's core.
At times, this triumvirate acts to reinforce the EU's external influence. This happened when the British, French and German foreign ministers journeyed to Iran last autumn, where they forged an agreement that would allow for international inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities.
On other occasions, however, the three countries give the impression of being mainly interested in presenting themselves as an exclusive club, triggering resentment among their EU partners. The problem for the EU is thus to find a mechanism that recognizes the international heft of the three without antagonizing the rest of the union.
If Europeans want to take part in vital global decisions -- as the security strategy outlined not long ago by EU High Representative Javier Solana argued -- they must find a middle way between the unanimity rule and the reality of member states' actual power. Only by doing so can the union achieve a more credible foreign and security policy and become a serious partner for the US, its neighbors and the rest of the world.
A practical way forward here is to establish a "European Security Council" (ESC) to operate as a steering committee between the EU Council -- which will have an unwieldy 25 members after this May's expansion -- and the future European foreign minister envisaged by the draft constitution. A suitable model for an ESC might be the UN Security Council, which allows concerted or joint action should agreement exist amongst its members. Otherwise, states retain their freedom to act individually.
To make this body viable, realistic criteria must underpin its design. First, it must be small, with no more than, say, 10 seats. Just a glance at an ordinary EU meeting room suffices to show that a council of 25-plus members is more talk show than decision-making body.
RSS