Something does not quite fit in the eternal debate about a visible face of the European Union on the international stage. When “Mrs. Europe”, as the president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is known, stands as the central figure of the European machine, no one is satisfied. But when the EU suffers from insufficient visibility and influence in its external action, neither does it.
It is logical. From our pro-European mentality, we would like the Union to mature enough to give it the leadership that any president of government has at the national level. But from our mentality as a Member State, we are reluctant to grant Mr. or Mrs. Europe powers that exceed their powers.
And this is because, in some areas, the European Union is the voice of Europeans and, in others, it is nothing more than the transmission belt of its member states. The internal market is almost that of a European federation, while, in foreign policy, the European Union is still an intergovernmental forum participated by 27 national capitals.
This explains why Von der Leyen’s early activism in Israel received a harsh rebuke from member states. The European Council issued a statement to set out “the EU’s common position in relation to the ongoing situation in the Middle East”, shortly after the impromptu trip in which Von der Leyen expressed her unequivocal support for Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist attacks.
Two things are certain: the European Commission does not have powers in defining the EU’s foreign policy, which is agreed upon by member states, and, in her support for Israel, Von der Leyen overlooked the basic components of EU diplomacy. EU in the Middle East conflict.
The Council’s conclusions have always been based on two basic principles: the necessary respect for international humanitarian law and the advancement of the two states, Israel and Palestine, as a political solution to the conflict. Nothing like “Israel has the right to defend itself, today and in the days to come,” uttered by the president of the Commission shortly after the terrorist attacks, an unqualified formulation during her visit to Tel Aviv, which many interpreted as a letter target Netanyahu for his actions in Gaza.
As if that were not enough, the European Commissioner for Neighborhood and Enlargement, the Hungarian Olivér Várhelyi, announced on social networks the suspension of aid to Palestine, something that represented a violation of the code of conduct of the college of commissioners and which was denied to the little time by other authorities.
It so happens that even the United States, a faithful ally of Israel, issued more considered messages since the beginning of the crisis. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met in Jordan with the leader of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. President Joe Biden concluded his visit to Tel Aviv with an agreement to allow the entry of humanitarian aid and reminded Netanyahu that the incursion into Gaza, if it occurs, must be based on the principle of proportionality.
Aware of the cacophony and controversy generated by the European response, High Representative Josep Borrell qualified Von der Leyen’s words and, in turn, redirected the position of the European Union towards its central postulates. In the European Parliament the question was asked: “How does lamenting one tragedy [in Israel] take away our moral strength to lament another [in Gaza]?” European foreign action is based mainly on values, aware that it lacks the power and resources necessary to act like other international powers.
If it wants to lead by example, as it has tried to convey during the war in Ukraine, the European Union must uphold the primacy of international law and the principles of the United Nations charter as vectors of its diplomacy. If cutting off water, electricity or gas supplies is a war crime in Ukraine, it must also be one in Gaza. Or if the civilian population cannot be a target of war in Kyiv, neither can it be in the strip. Otherwise, the ground will be fertile ground for accusations of hypocrisy and a double standard in the European approach to international conflicts – accusations that China, Russia, Brazil and other actors in the Global South never tire of repeating.
The problem of European diplomacy does not lie, therefore, in who its visible face is, but in the role and powers that we want to give to said figure. And as long as the EU’s foreign policy continues to resemble a choral orchestra, at least let its actors sing in unison.
