Photo: Susanne Böck / www.youthmedia.eu (cc-by-nc)

The EU is not a global player. Maybe it is not a player at all. It might be represented but it rarely reaches decisions together on foreign policy issues.

the myth of the EU as a global player

If you often read non-British newspapers you probably got used to the myth that the EU became a global player after the Lisbon Treaty came into force. After all, it had almost created a European Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, it is a myth that the EU is a global player. The reason might be that the EU is an international organisation focusing primarily on economic integration and hence not made for foreign policy.

This myth is legendary

During the 70's Henry Kissinger, then US Secretary of State, said that he wanted to call Europe but couldn't find the telephone number. There is almost no discussion, lecture, conference or article on the topic – including the one you just started to read - in which Kissinger and his phone aren't mentioned. Even if he never said that - according to Timothy Garton Ash - it captures the gloomy reality of that period. The 70's in Europe were an stagnant time known as eurosclerosis, in which the organisation was struggling as the national governments of its nine member states were headed by a generation of uncharismatic leaders who were unable to deal with the aftermath of the oil crisis. Sound familiar? Yes, there are certain parallels with what's happening today: we have a crisis and a completely discredited political class – but at least it seems that today Hillary Clinton would know who to call to reach Europe. However, having a phone number does not make the EU a global actor.

The origins of EU foreign policy

The foundations of the EU's foreign policy can be found in the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht momentum motivated a further move introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam: the creation of a High Representative position in charge of foreign policy.

Appointing Javier Solana as the first High Representative was a clever, pragmatic move. Just out from his role as NATO Secretary-General, after his baptism of fire in Serbia and Kosovo, Mr. Solana knew his way around in the gelatinous international arena and showed EU's good will towards its American friend.

Soft and hard power

We frequently hear that EU external action is confined to so-called soft power because the armies, the hard power, are integrated within the NATO under US hegemony. Not a bad idea then to choose the former civil head of that organisation to lead the development of the EU's foreign and security policy. After all, the High Representative's job description was in fact furthering EU's soft power while trying to promote hard power outside NATO.

What about the hard power then? Solana's period saw the first manifestations of military operations under the sole flag of the EU, which started with Operation Artemis in Congo and continued in conflict areas such as Macedonia, Kosovo or the Somali coasts, showing that the EU could show muscle – or guns – outside NATO's framework.

Jumping to power by creating a Minister?

So was this the moment when the EU almost became a global player? That seems to be what the people writing the failed Constitution for Europe thought. Creating a position called Minister of Foreign Affairs as they did – tailored for Mr. Solana by the way – was a strong declaration of intentions. In addition, placing a diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service, under its authority would effectively complete the picture. After the Constitution failed and was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty, the term "Minister" was dropped but its functions and the Foreign Service remained.

Expectations were high in the eve of the European Summit that had to elect Mr. Solana's substitute. What happened within the walls of the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels is another example of the good old EU/Vatican way of doing things. In order to keep the balance within the EU political families the position had to be given to a member of a progressive government, preferably a woman. Was there anybody to meet the criteria? BANG! Catherine Ashton was elected as the flamboyant EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Almost all commentators received this appointment with scepticism pointing out her lack of experience in international affairs and bemoaning the lost opportunity. (This magazine took a different position, however.)

Non-Minister Ashton is not the problem

Putting the blame in Ms. Ashton is a mistake. Even before her appointment the EU suffered shameful defeats in the international arena. Remember the Copenhagen UN Conference on Climate Change in 2009: the EU was expecting to have a relevant role in the negotiations and in the end the US and China left the EU out of the picture. Yes, there were big confrontations of interests on the table, but also an operative mess: when Obama met the so-called EU delegation he had in front of him Commission President Barroso, Council President Fredrik Reinfeldt, German Chancellor Merkel, British PM Brown and French President Sarkozy. And where was there going to be room for Ashton among all these guys?

Ashton's accidental election was soon explained in Brussels as a reasonable choice: setting up the External Action Service would be an extremely complex issue likely to be hampered by tough turf wars between the Commission, the Council and the EU Member States and choosing a big ego-type kind of person would have put the whole operation at risk. Good try. In reality, this was about choosing an extremely low-profile politician who would under no circumstance overshadow or influence any member state leader, which has pretty much been the spirit behind most top appointments in the EU for a long time now. The blame should therefore be placed with those who elected her.

Foreign policy is only for states

The EU is not a state, it's a complex joint venture of sovereign nations - which is fine as long as there's the will to work together. For example, it works for policies such as Economic Affairs, Fisheries or Consumer Protection, where Member States are obliged to take decisions together. In contrast, foreign policy is a pure intergovernmental matter subjected to consensus rule. If no agreement is reached then there's no action at the EU level and hence each Member State is free to pursue its own interests. When national interests are at stake not a single leader thinks about what the EU should do and very often the result is just broadcasted confusion. In the event of an international crisis, Ms. Clinton might want to call Ms. Ashton, but what for? To wait online until 27 countries reach a consensus agreement or to be informed about how 27 countries agree to disagree?

We are decades away from a coherent, integrated foreign policy. When will we get there? When lower policy areas are more integrated, making national interests more convergent. Good news, then - just remember that the entire story of the EU started with pooling the coal and steel production of six countries... But will history wait for us?