FROM CONTESTATION TO BUY-IN: THE EU’S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY AS SEEN FROM EUROPEAN CAPITALS National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy A Collaborative Report www.globsec.org From Contestation to Buy-In: the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy as seen from European Capitals National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy | A Collaborative Report (3 EDITED BY Vladislava Gubalova, PhD Senior Fellow, Centre for Global Europe DATE May 2021 DISCLAIMERS All of the views expressed in this piece are of the authors and thus do not necessary represent the official position of GLOBSEC. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Centre for Global Europe at the GLOBSEC Policy Institute provides constructive ideas and promotes innovative policy recommendation to ensure that the European Union remains an attractive, successful and viable project that is setting global norms and defining international system. With an office in Brussels, the Center is a hub for analysis and strategic dialogue on EU policies shaping Europe’s global standing. The GLOBSEC Policy Institute is a policy-oriented think-tank analysing policy and the international environment. It focuses on research which is relevant to decision-makers, business leaders and all concerned citizens. The Institute wants to make an impact so that the values of the GLOBSEC organisation – liberal and democratic order in the transatlantic world – are deeply embedded in the agenda of governments Abstract GEOPE – “Geopolitical Europe: are the EU member-states ready for it?” – is an international project seeking to propose feasible paths for compromises and coalition-building between Though the European Union (EU) is a global actor in areas like trade and climate, the bloc has struggled to develop a the EU member-states towards a more coherent EU Common Foreign and Security policy. It coherent common foreign and security policy (CFSP). EU external action is rather often plagued by institutional inefficiencies is supported by Jean Monnet Activities of the EU’s Erasmus+ Programme. and a lack of shared strategy. Recognizing these shortcomings, member states have agitated for the EU to become a more responsive and coherent actor and to acquire a more prominent international role. © GLOBSEC © GLOBSEC Policy Institute 2021 Strategic coherence provides one vehicle to strengthen the EU CFSP through shared goals that are attentive to different GLOBSEC Policy Institute Vajnorská 100/B 831 04 Bratislava Slovakia national interests and contexts. Broader changes in the institutional framework of the EU (e.g. the extension of qualified majority voting in foreign and security policy), meanwhile, are considered unnecessary and unwelcome. Instead, available www.globsec.org mechanisms (e.g. coalitions of the willing and constructive abstentions) are deemed preferable for overcoming divides between national governments. This collaborative report includes 15 country chapters based on the responses of distinguished experts to four questions collected March-May 2021. GUIDING QUESTIONS: What are the three main tasks in foreign and security policy that your country is dealing with? Do you see any possible coalition-building potential in managing these tasks within the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) framework? What are some of the most prominent member state disagreements? What are potential solutions to overcoming these divides? How does your country assess the CFSP from an institutional perspective? What changes should be introduced, if any, to ensure a more coherent EU foreign and security policy (e.g. a move to QMV, a modified role for particular institutions, enhanced compliance methods, ‘sleeping beauties’ [provisions in the EU treaties that are yet to be activated])? Does your country consider the EU Global Strategy from 2016 to still be relevant or should it be updated? From Contestation to Buy-In: the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy as seen from European Capitals From Contestation to Buy-In: the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy as seen from European Capitals 4) National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy | A Collaborative Report National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy | A Collaborative Report (5 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 GREECE 16 AUSTRIA 9 “Present and future of the EU common foreign and security policy: A view from “National approaches towards EU’s common Athens” foreign and security policy” By Spyros Blavoukos, Associate Professor, Athens By Sofia Maria Satanakis, Senior Research Fellow University of Economics and Business and Research and Velina Tchakarova, Director Austrian Institute for Fellow, ELIAMEP European and Security Policy (AIES) HUNGARY 17 BULGARIA 10 “Walking alone, walking together” “Bulgaria and the CFSP: Dead-ends and By Balázs Kós, Founder and CEO, Blue Door Consulting opportunities” By Vessela Tcherneva and Gloria Trifonova, European ITALY 18 Council on Foreign Relations, Sofia office “In search of an effective EU external action” CROATIA 11 By Matteo Bonomi, Research Fellow at Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Rome “Croatian approach towards more coherent EU foreign and security policy” POLAND 19 By Krsevan Antun Dujmovic, Senior Associate, Institute for Development and International Relations—IRMO “Poland’s views on CFSP: priority for Eastern neighbourhood and transatlantic relations” CZECHIA 12 By Elżbieta Kaca, Senior Research Fellow, the Polish Institute of International Affairs “Czechia: Overcoming the strategic incoherency” ROMANIA 20 By Vít Dostál and Pavel Havlíček, Association for International Affairs (AMO) in Prague “From policy follower to policy maker: Romania’s quest for regional relevance” ESTONIA 13 By Ionela Maria Ciolan, Visiting Research Fellow at the European Policy Centre (Brussels), Researcher at „National approaches towards EU’s common the Centre for Strategic Studies, National University of foreign and security policy: Estonia“ Political Studies and Public Administration (Bucharest) By Piret Kuusik, Estonian Foreign Policy Institute/ ICDS SLOVAKIA 21 FRANCE 14 “Slovakia: perspectives on foreign and “France pushes for a strong, but flexible, security policy in the EU” European foreign policy” By Ivan Iliev, Research Fellow, Strategic Analysis By Georgina Wright, Head, Europe Program and Anne- Cécile Legrain, Research Assistant, Europe Program, SLOVENIA 22 Institut Montaigne “Slovenia: strong union of strong member GERMANY 15 states” Marko Lovec, Assistant Professor, University of Ljubljana, “How Germany tries to lead from behind in Faculty of Social Sciences CFSP“ By Roderick Parkes, Research Director and Head, Alfred SWEDEN 23 von Oppenheim Center for European Policy Studies, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) “Sweden and the European Union common foreign and security policy” Dr. Ian Anthony, Programme Director, European Security, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) From Contestation to Buy-In: the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy as seen from European Capitals From Contestation to Buy-In: the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy as seen from European Capitals 6) National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy | A Collaborative Report National Approaches to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy | A Collaborative Report (7 According to the GLOBSEC survey, there is some overlap Germany, to pursue mutually beneficial relations with in the national foreign policy priorities of member states, Moscow on certain issue areas. Executive Summary congruences that also are included among EU priorities. This report identified the following non-exhaustive list: China’s influence on different member states, meanwhile, has been augmented through the 17+1 format and the The international environment has been changing country’s penetration into some market niches (e.g. through global power shifts, with democratic values on → Mediterranean new technologies and telecommunications, education, the defensive and the liberal economic model enduring EU Global Strategy Regional stability, → Black Sea etc...). The European Commission has deemed China a setbacks. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the A strategic document outlining the EU’s integration, “systemic rival”4 and some national governments (Poland, shortcomings of the European Union’s global standing. principles and priorities in its external action. enlargement → Western Balkans Slovenia, Czechia, Romania) have begun to reverse European member states often find themselves diverging → Eastern Partnership cooperation with Beijing. The Comprehensive Agreement rather than converging towards “common” policies. Yet the Main principles on Investment was signed with China in December 2020, ambition is there for the EU to grow into a more coherent, nonetheless, raising questions about the rigidity of the unity → USA (Transatlanticism) agile and prominent international actor. EU’s policy stance. engagement → Russia The EU’s present institutional framework inefficiencies responsibility Relations with → China Additional areas of member state policy divergence and and its lack of strategic coherence have indeed been a incoherence pertain to the EU’s approach towards the partnership global