An EU Diplomacy Serving Citizens

The Franco-German project to reduce the size of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and place Kaja Kallas under the supervision of Ursula von der Leyen stems from the desire to equip the European Union with more incisive diplomatic action, capable of addressing the crises currently underway and requiring a firmer posture from the Union to protect the security and interests of its citizens.

The main motivations behind the two capitals would specifically be: eliminating duplications: there are constant frictions and overlaps between European diplomacy within the EEAS, the foreign ministries of the Member States and the Commission’s structures; strengthening the Commission in the face of global crises: complex conflicts, such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as issues of economic and trade security, require a faster and more centralised chain of command; and, finally, there is a desire to reduce potential overlaps and institutional deadlocks that could weaken the Union’s overall effectiveness.

The Franco-German proposal envisages assigning Kaja Kallas a more operational and expanded role within the Commission, as coordinator of the external portfolios, while leaving Ursula von der Leyen responsible for final political and executive decisions. The Franco-German reform document aims to reorganise the European Union’s foreign policy by proposing a profound revision of the powers of the High Representative and the EEAS.

Beyond the Franco-German proposal, the decision on what future to give diplomacy can only and exclusively belong to the Berlaymont. What nevertheless emerges clearly is the need for a Union capable of having effective diplomatic instruments, able to interpret the complexity of the world in an at least highly challenging historical period. With the illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine and the resumption of hostilities in the Middle East, the vital interest that must guide the European Union’s diplomatic action is to break the paradigm according to which war would be more rewarding for the strategic interests of States and easier to communicate politically. War offers immediate answers only in appearance; in reality, it destroys communities, economies, trust and the future. Diplomacy, by contrast, is slow, demanding and often unpopular, but it creates conditions in which results can endure.

Europe still lacks a full capacity to speak and act as a unified political actor. Precisely for this reason, it remains strategic: it is the most ambitious contemporary experiment born from the voluntary relinquishment of part of national sovereignty to transform rivalry into cooperation. It can speak not the language of the status quo, but that of the future, if it succeeds in bringing together foreign policy, security, trade, development cooperation, energy, climate and cultural diplomacy within a coherent strategy.

A common European diplomacy should be based on several essential criteria: the centrality of the individual; respect for international law; the defence of the sovereignty and freedom of peoples; conflict prevention; support for multilateral institutions; mediation capacity; responsibility towards the neighbourhood; dialogue with emerging powers; and attention to the social, economic and environmental consequences of strategic choices.

It should also overcome the national vetoes that paralyse common action, strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament and the transparency of decision-making processes. A Europe incapable of deciding on its own foreign policy risks becoming a spectator precisely at those moments when it would have the greatest need to act.

Today, this legacy must be translated into a new European policy. Europe finds itself at a crossroads. It can accept the propaganda according to which everything has already been written and there is no alternative to war, or it can choose to become a community of destiny capable of defending peace through law, firmness, solidarity and dialogue.

Rediscovering politics means precisely this: choosing once again, assuming responsibility and building alternatives. It means putting strength at the service of justice, sovereignty at the service of responsibility, and diplomacy at the service of the common good.

And, above all, it means recognising that Europe cannot limit itself to defending what it has built. It must have the courage to build what does not yet exist: a political community capable of transforming conflicts into cooperation, borders into bridges, and the memory of wars into a shared responsibility for peace.