The EU’s diplomatic positions are represented unanimously by the 27 member states. A handicap in influencing the resolution of the conflict while the European Commission plays its own role.
Hours of discussions led to calls for “breaks” and “humanitarian corridors.” On Friday, October 22, voices were raised criticizing the response of the leaders of the 27 member states of the European Union to the war between Hamas and Israel. When leaders met for a European Council, they struggled to agree on their message to the Palestinians and Israelis and stopped short of calling for a ceasefire, Politico reports. A sign that the points of view are very different in the EU.
However, observers hoped for strong words, after two weeks of European confusion on the issue. First, two days after the Hamas attacks, Hungarian EU Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi announced that he would end humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, which was met with an outcry and denied a few hours later by the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell . Then it was the President of the European Commission caused discomfort among EU diplomats during a visit to Israel on October 13. Ursula von der Leyen supported it “the right to self-defense” of Israelis, but did not make this support conditional on respect for international law and did not take the time to visit the Palestinian territories. A positioning that contradicts the EU’s political line on this issue.
A financial weight more than diplomatic
Brussels has traditionally “always been in favor of a two-state solution,” said Hugh Lovatt, a specialist on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and analyst at the European Council of International Relations, to franceinfo. A goal that the 27 “always found difficult to achieve, particularly due to a lack of consensus.” Conclusion: “The EU has done nothing, but unlike the USA, it has never had great political weight on this issue,” explains the expert.
Because the involvement of Europeans in this conflict is primarily “financial in nature,” notes James Moran, researcher at the Center for European Policy Study and former advisor to European diplomacy. “The Union and its member states have over time become the main financial support of the Palestinian Authority,” specifies the expert. Hamas, which is in power in the Gaza Strip and is classified as a terrorist organization by the EU, does not receive any money from European institutions. But “the bloc is a key player in humanitarian and development assistance” in the Palestinian enclave, points out James Moran.
The EU is by no means as important to Israel as the USA, but has long had the diplomatic goal of being “a mediator” in the conflict, explains the former diplomat. A line that appeared to break with Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of “unconditional” support in Tel Aviv, which was criticized by more than 800 EU officials in an internal letter consulted by Le Monde. “The Hamas attack really caught everyone by surprise, including the Israeli government, which provoked a very strong supportive reaction from Europeans,” analyzes James Moran.
Ursula von der Leyen questioned
The divided reaction from European officials “also shows the increasing rivalries between the different EU institutions,” emphasizes Hugh Lovatt. Officially, the President of the European Commission has almost no power in foreign policy issues. It is therefore not surprising that Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to Israel is causing concern among diplomats, some of whom accuse her of behaving like a “queen” and overstepping her mandate, Politico reports.
However, the former German defense minister had promised to lead a more “geopolitical” commission during her term, shortly after taking office in 2019. A wish that was greeted with raised eyebrows by observers at the time, but which, due to the circumstances, came true “In recent years, especially with the EU’s role in the war in Ukraine,” estimates Gesine Weber in an interview with franceinfo. Researcher at the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
On this issue, “the Commission clearly has the leadership role in the implementation of Union policies, especially since many of the institution’s instruments are used to support Ukraine,” the researcher adds. The President’s visits to Ukraine and her calls for support for Kiev were all the more urgent because they were supported by the member states.
“In a way, Ursula von der Leyen used the same strategy on the issue of Israel and Hamas [que sur l’Ukraine]except that the States differ on this issue.”
Gesine Weber, researcher at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
at franceinfo
It seems that the war in Ukraine is making Europeans forget that foreign policy remains a matter for member states. “The 27 decide unanimously on the EU’s foreign policy,” remembers Gesine Weber. “It is then embodied by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a kind of foreign minister of the EU.” Because when the Union adopted a common foreign and security policy 30 years ago, it is the 27 capitals that have the final say on this matter. During the preparation of the last Council of Europe, diplomats had a lot to do to reconcile Irish or Spanish positions, which were traditionally more pro-Palestinian, with Czech and German views, which were overwhelmingly more pro-Israel.
“The fact that a country can use a veto to block actions by the other 26 member states has often derailed our foreign policy,” emphasizes David McAllister, German MEP and President of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. “This whole question of consensus decisions has a negative impact on the institutions’ ability to act,” confirms Gesine Weber, citing Hungary’s regular blocking of sanctions against Russia as an example.
“Doing nothing would be bad news”
Apart from the risk of making the Union inaudible, “political paralysis could lead certain member states to give priority to other formats”, such as bilateral discussions, fears David McAllister. Worse, this cacophony would have even prevented the EU from de-escalating the conflict, writes Nathalie Tocci, head of an Italian think tank, the Instituto Affari Internazionali, in the Guardian.
David McAllister, like others, advocates the abolition of unanimity and “the creation of a qualified majority” for foreign policy decisions. But in order for this policy to be “truly European and coherent, a real transfer of competences is required at the European level,” emphasizes Gesine Weber. A proposal that has little support in the capitals, emphasizes Mujtaba Rahman from the analysis company Eurasia Group in an article published by Politico.
Is the EU doomed to remain a “geopolitical dwarf”? Not necessarily, firstly because the European institutions offer an “important” space for coordination, emphasizes Mujtaba Rahman. Although negotiations between the 27 states are sometimes difficult, the war in Ukraine shows that the bloc can speak with one voice. A situation “that corresponds to an increased demand from European citizens (…) who expect more services from the EU in terms of defense and security, as opinion studies show,” says Gesine Weber.
As for the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which for the 27 is a “less existential” issue than the war in Ukraine, the roadmap to follow is less obvious. “The EU cannot be a mediator because it has no contact with Hamas,” emphasizes Hugh Lovatt. “But in the longer term, it can play a diplomatic role politically as part of a peace process thanks to its ties to Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” the researcher adds. “Surely the Israelis don’t really listen to the Europeans, but the EU must defend its values and principles, says James Moran. Doing nothing for peace in Palestine would be bad news for the EU, especially for our own communities.” [juives et arabes].”