Challenges ahead for Federica Mogherini

After years of recovering from economic turmoil of the financial crisis, geopolitics is back at top of the EU agenda.The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is regarded as the biggest threat to European security since The Cold War, and EU has been widely criticized for its lack of coordinated response to the dramatic events unfolding on its doorstep. This underlines the need for a common foreign policy.

In addition, failed revolutions of the Arab world, the rise of Islamic State and the decline of political power of individual EU member states have made the strategic case for a common foreign policy as pivotal as ever. EU leaders are aware of this: At the June 2014 Summit the European Council agreed that “Never before has a stronger EU engagement on international affairs been more called for.”

This statement indicates a new era of political cooperation, but the political case for a common foreign policy has weakened considerably following the financial crisis and several failed international military interventions during the last decade. Moreover, it is often difficult for the 28 member states to rally around the same overall priorities, which results in a policy based on the lowest common denominator of what the countries can agree on. However, the demand for EU speaking with one voice is the wrong way of presenting the problem, says Fabrizio Tassinari, senior researcher in foreign policy at DIIS.

- This is the traditional way of looking at foreign policy, but the real issue is what EU can deliver on the ground. Decision-making in an enlarged EU will inevitably be complex and consensus-based. But the proof of the pudding, five years after Lisbon, is in implementation: How the staff of the new service has come together, how they manage to integrate inputs from the different institutions, how EU delegations work in third countries, how they relate with members states embassies and how, in turn, their work is perceived by third countries, he says.

Five years of implementation
The 2009 Lisbon Treaty introduced radical changes to the EU foreign policy system. The two most significant were the establishment of the External Action Service (EEAS), which coordinates foreign policy and serves as a diplomatic service, and the introduction of a ‘EU secretary of state’, an empowered High Representative for Foreign Affairs. This provides the potential for a more coherent foreign policy, but we are only beginning to see the effects of these changes.

- During the first five years after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty former High Representative Catherine Ashton was preoccupied with building the service and making the various institutions work together. The newly appointed High Representative Federica Mogherini can now spend most of her time concentrating on policy substance, says Christine Nissen, PhD candidate and foreign policy researcher at DIIS.

The High Representative has a double role as Vice-President of the European Commission giving her the means to tie together EU institutions that deal with foreign policy, and she will coordinate and supervise the work of all Commissioners involved with EU’s external action. Mogherini has even stressed that the Lisbon Treaty has an “untapped potential” for foreign policy cooperation.

- Mogherini, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and President of the European Council Donald Tusk all seem to have strong political profiles. In combination with the much more issue-based structure of the Commission this will hopefully be more effective, says Fabrizio Tassinari.

Danish opt-out with increasing consequences
The nature of the crises in Europe’s neighborhoods will arguably bring EU defense policy into focus in the coming years. This has been a difficult and neglected policy area for the EU, but momentum is building up for working more closely together on defense.

This is particularly interesting in a Danish context. Danish foreign policy is mainly conducted through EU, and the Danish government seeks to cooperate and coordinate with EU institutions to the widest possible extent. However, Denmark has an opt-out from participation in all defense-related decisions and actions, and national interests have been compromised several times because Denmark can only take part in civilian aspects of missions or use NATO or UN framework.

- It a paradox that opt-out sometimes excludes Denmark from the EU framework, even when it would have been more salient. Defense cooperation is one of the top priorities of the new Commission. The result will be more frequent invocations of the opt-out, and this will have increasing political implications for Denmark, says Christine Nissen.