The EU’s diplomatic positions are taken unanimously by the 27 member states. A handicap to influence the resolution of the conflict, while the European Commission plays its own role.
Hours of discussions to arrive at a request for “breaks” And of “humanitarian corridors”. Voices were raised on Friday October 22 to criticize the response of the leaders of the 27 member countries of the European Union to the war between Hamas and Israel. Gathered for a European Council, the heads of state and government had great difficulty in agreeing on their message to the Palestinians and Israelis, refraining from asking for a ceasefire, as reported Politico. A sign that points of view are very different within the EU.
>> Follow the latest news from the war between Israel and Hamas live
However, observers were hoping for strong words, after two weeks of European confusion on the subject. First, two days after the Hamas attacks, there was the announcement, by the Hungarian European Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, of the cessation of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, greeted by an outcry and denied a few hours later by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell. Then it’s therePresident of the European Commission who created discomfort among EU diplomats during a visit to Israel on October 13. Ursula von der Leyen supported it “the right to defend oneself” Israelis, but did not condition this support on respect for international law, nor took the time to visit the Palestinian territories. A positiongoing against the EU’s political line on the subject.
A financial weight more than diplomatic
Traditionally, Brussels “has always argued for a two-state solution“, underlines to franceinfo Hugh Lovatt, specialist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and analyst at the European Council on International Relations. An objective that the 27 “have always had difficulty leading, particularly due to a lack of consensus”. Result, if “the EU has not done anything, it has never had very significant political weight on this issue, unlike the United States”explains the expert.
Because the involvement of the EEuropeans in this conflict is first “financial”notes James Moran, researcher at the Center for European Policy Study, and former advisor to European diplomacy. “The Union and its Member States have become, over time, the main financial support of the Palestinian Authority”, which administers the West Bank, specifies the specialist. Hamas, in power in the Gaza Strip and which the EU classifies as a terrorist organization, does not receive money from European institutions. But “the block is an actor major in humanitarian and development aid” in the Palestinian enclaveunderlines James Moran.
Far from being as essential as the United States towards Israel, the EU has long given itself the diplomatic objective of being “an intermediary” in the conflict, explains the former diplomat. A line that seemed to shatter with the statement of support “unconditional” of Ursula von der Leyen in Tel Aviv, criticized by more than 800 EU officials in an internal letter consulted by The world. “The Hamas attack really surprised everyone, including the Israeli government, which provoked very strong reactions of support from Europeans”analyzes James Moran.
Ursula von der Leyen called into question
The divided response from European officials “also shows the rise of rivalries between the different EU institutions”, points out Hugh Lovatt. OOfficially, the President of the European Commission has almost no power in matters of foreign policy. Not surprising, therefore, that Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to Israel has raised the hackles of diplomats, some of whom accuse her of behaving like “a queen” having exceeded its mandate, reports Politico.
The former German Defense Minister had nevertheless promised to lead a more “geopolitics” during his mandate, shortly after taking office in 2019. A wish greeted by a raised eyebrow from observers at the time, but which came to fruition by force of circumstances “in recent years, particularly with the EU’s role in the war in Ukraine”estimates Gesine Weber to franceinfo, researcher in the Paris office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
On this topic, “the Commission clearly has leadership to carry out Union policy, especially since many of the institution’s tools are used to support Ukraine”, adds the researcher. The president’s visits to Ukraine, or her calls to support kyiv, were all the more forceful because they were supported by member states.
“In a way, Ursula von der Leyen applied the same strategy on the question of Israel and Hamas [que sur l’Ukraine]except that on this subject, the States disagree.”
Gesine Weber, researcher at the German Marshall Fund of the United Statesat franceinfo
It seems that the war in Ukraine has made Europeans forget that foreign policy remains the preserve of member states.. “It is the 27 who decide the EU’s foreign policy, unanimouslyrecalls Gesine Weber. It is then embodied by the High Representative for External Affairs, a sort of EU Foreign Minister.“For if the union has acquired a pforeign policy and common security 30 years ago, it is the 27 capitals which have the last word on the subject. During the preparation of the last Council of Europe, diplomats therefore had a lot to do to reconcile the Irish or Spanish positions, traditionally more pro-Palestinian, with the Czech and German views, largely more pro-Israeli.
“The fact that one country can use a veto to block action by the other 26 member states has derailed our foreign policy numerous times”underlines David McAllister, German MEP and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. “This whole question of decision-making by consensus has a negative effect on the ability of institutions to act”confirms Gesine Weber, citing as an example Hungary’s regular blockage on sanctions against Russia.
“Doing nothing would be bad news”
Beyond the risk of making the Union inaudible, “political paralysis could encourage certain member states to prioritize other formats”, like the bilateral discussions, worries David McAllister. Worse, this cacophony would even have “prevented the EU from de-escalating the conflict”judge Nathalie Tocci, head of an Italian think tank, the Instituto Affari Internazionali, in the Guardian.
Like others, David McAllister therefore advocates the end of unanimous votes and “the establishment of a qualified majority” for decisions relating to foreign policy. But so that this policy “is truly European and coherentthere should be a real transfer of skills at European level”, underlines Gesine Weber. A proposal which receives little approval in the capitals, points out Mujtaba Rahman, of the analysis company Eurasia Group, in an article published by Politico.
Is the EU condemned to remain a “geopolitical dwarf” ? Not necessarily, firstly because the European institutions offer a space “important” coordination, underlines Mujtaba Rahman. Even if negotiations among 27 are sometimes difficult, the war in Ukraine shows that the bloc can speak with one voice. A state of affairs “which corresponds to an increased demand from European citizens (…) who expect the EU to do more in terms of defense and security, as opinion studies show”according to Gesine Weber.
It remains that on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, a subject “less existential” for the 27 than the war in Ukraine, the road map to follow is less obvious. “The EU cannot be a mediator, since it has no contact with Hamas”underlines Hugh Lovatt. “But in the longer term, as part of a peace process, it has a diplomatic role to play politically thanks to its links with Israel and the Palestinian Authority“, adds the researcher. “Of course, the Israelis don’t really listen to the Europeans, but the EU must defend its values and its principles, Judge James Moran. Doing nothing for peace in Palestine would be bad news for the EU, especially for our own communities [juives et arabes].”