EU breaks away from unanimity in foreign policy at Paris meeting

In times of crisis, you either sink or accelerate. Either you go down, or you learn how to swim. After COVID-19, the economic crisis, and the invasion of Ukraine, now there is the Trump crisis looming in front of the 27 member states. As has always happened, first, there is chaos; some try to manage on their own, others try to self-proclaim themselves as bridge-building leaders, while others crouch down and hope the storm will pass over them and they will manage to get by. Then, after some time, perhaps after another humiliation (as in Munich in this case), there is an attempt to organize a resistance.

It happened in the fight against COVID-19 to deal with the resulting economic crisis; it happened to support Ukraine, which, without the Union’s backing, would probably have become Russian territory at this point.

And it is happening in response to Trump’s withdrawal from the Western commitment and his accusations, his attacks, his threats. The Union is realizing that at this historical stage, it is alone — and alone it must respond, perhaps finding new allies. The whole world is being redrawn. It is not only the 27 member states that are being revealed. Russia will also negotiate with Trump without Europe, but it will have to pay a price, as it will also have to pay its debt to China.  Sooner or later, China will clash directly with the US, while the relationship with the EU is still unfolding between attacks and flattery.

Some EU countries will meet in Paris today. A few hours before the meeting starts, there appear to be eight, but Britain will also attend, as will the heads of the European Council and Commission and the secretary-general of NATO. It was impossible to hold a 27-member European Council — there was no time — and, above all, there was the risk of reaching yet another dead end, with differing positions that would block any initiative.

The goal in Paris is to find a positioning of the Union within the framework of the evolution that appears to be unfolding in the peace negotiations for the Russian war in Ukraine. However, the focus is also transatlantic. It is also about figuring out how to position its foreign policy from now on.

The attempt is to move forward with those who are there, those who want to be there, rebuilding a foreign policy structure that includes a historic ally in foreign policy that has always played a very significant role in Europe. It is not certain that these eight will find a strong balance; Italy, for example, has made it clear that it has doubts about this setup and may back out because it thinks it can play the game alone with the US. Even without Italy, which will never play the role of bridge-builder between the EU and the United States because the 27 member states do not want it and because Trump does not seem interested in using it in this key either, the group could move forward (assuming all hell does not break loose in Germany at the next election).

Clearly, there are many “ifs.”  It is a very complex game with numerous facets. However, a choice was made, a group was formed, and the veto issue was resolved by establishing a “coalition of those who are in.” Is this the end of the Union? No, it is not the only critical case where the Union did not proceed united. It wasn’t like that for the euro, and it was not like that for Schengen either. Yet, the euro has become one of the strongest currencies in the world, and the Schengen Area provides the wealthiest market in the world.