Why Mogherini was Not in Belarus: Powers and Weaknesses of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

by Angelo Amante

Image from www.neurope.eu

The absence of Mrs Mogherini at the Minsk summit on Ukraine did not pass unnoticed, reopening the debate on the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. In Belarus, Europe was not represented by Mogherini, but by Angela Merkel and François Hollande. This fact reveals that the Franco-German axis still dominates the EU’s geopolitical relations. Since the early 1950s, the balance of power between France and Germany constitutes the core of a united Europe. Politically speaking, therefore, the role of France and Germany in Minsk is far from unexpected.

From a legal point of view, however, the question is more complex. What follows underlines some problems with how the Lisbon Treaty delineates the figure of the High Representative. The Lisbon Treaty establishes that the High Representative shall preside the Foreign Affairs Council, leading the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The High Representative is also one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission and functions as the head of the European External Action Service. In theory, the competences and powers of the High Representative are thus quite relevant. In practice, however, the particular policy field to which the responsibilities and activities of the European Foreign Affairs Minister are ascribed is rather abstract, posing a number of obstacles. 

The national interests and protectionist tendencies of other countries complicate the attempts to provide substantial powers to the European Union in the foreign and security policy. This problem impedes the pursuit of consistent and strong external actions. The dispositions concerning the Common Foreign and Security Policy are the result of a long process of mediation among member states. Article 24, for example, establishes that the decisions connected to the Common Foreign and Security Policy “shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise”. In a union of 28 states, achieving unanimity is inevitably complex. Furthermore, the EU is not allowed to adopt any legislative act in the foreign and security field. Lastly, the unwillingness of several member states to extend EU powers in this field is demonstrated by the decision to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in matters of this kind, probably in order to avoid – as occurred in the past in other areas – any unauthorized expansion of the EU competence by means of court rulings.

In the national Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera”, the High Representative Mogherini declared that the decision to bestow the responsibility for the negotiations with Russia upon France and Germany has been jointly taken by all the 28 EU member states. Nevertheless, by looking at the Treaty and keeping in mind the political discussions behind its drafting, we may argue that the powers of the High Representative have been purposefully limited. As long as the individual member states continue to reject possibilities for expanding the EU’s foreign policy prerogatives, it will remain perfectly normal to have French and German state officials in charge of resolving a crisis that is threatening the security of all European states.