Interest policy has a bad name. Most European countries would claim that their foreign policy is value policy. But is EU foreign policy really value policy? Does a pure foreign value policy really exist? And is there, and should there be, a distinction between values and interests at all?I believe foreign policy is and should be primarily interest policy. And interests are and should be defined through a certain value set. This results in a value driven interest policy, a foreign policy where interests and values are in equilibrium.
What gives interest policy its bad name is that interests and values are defined separately, usually by different people, who then try to find a compromise between interests and values. In reality this leads to inconsistencies, bad compromises and double standards. And it appears as interest policy masked as value policy. This is the worst foreign policy as it is unpredictable, inconsistent and compromises European values.
Let’s start with a definition of interests and values.
Interests: Because the EU is not a single nation state, the European interest is not always clear and others either get confused and/or exploit the ambiguity.
What interests define EU foreign policy? This is not clear either. EU interests are often just the lowest common denominator of member states foreign policy. It is an unclear combination of interest and values, often in competition between geopolitical/economic interest and human rights and democratic values (in many cases just pretended). It is also a feeble mask for competition between member states national interests.
Cynics claim that member states define themselves through national interest and ‘outsource’ the difficult value policy, e.g. human rights, rule of law, democratic standards) to the EU. A division of tasks which cannot work and is exploited easily by counter parts of the EU, e.g. China and Russia.
Values: What do we mean by promoting our values? This is increasingly empty talk which has no resonance. In addition, the EU is inconsistent in applying its own values and standards. Our foreign policy is full of double standards juggling interests and values.
We should rethink our approach based on consistency between interests and values.
The starting point for developing this approach should be the question ‘What kind of world do we want to see? What kind of global order? Answering this question will help to define our foreign policy interests and objectives (e.g. a world order which offers security, stability, prosperity for all and is based on the respect of fundamental human rights).
When the objectives are clear we should define how to get there and in doing so should be as open and creative as possible. This is more difficult.
In this process we should consider direct and indirect ways. Sometimes the direct way may be the best, but more often then not the indirect way may be better.
Indirect approaches usually require creativity. Creativity is a rare commodity in foreign policy. But we need it because the world is too complicated.
An example for finding creative solutions to complex issues was the creation of the European Union 50 years ago. After two devastating wars in Europe the objective was peace, stability and prosperity. The way was through pulling the coal and steel industries. This must have been the oddest and creative proposal to end decades of atrocious wars in Europe. But it worked and works and has developed into the most successful model of a regional bloc based on pulled sovereignty.
So, what can be the coal and steel of reaching EU foreign policy objectives? Energy? Climate? Financial regulation?
A good example of a European value driven interest policy is on climate change. Here Europe has set the agenda, and (through ups and downs) leads by example based on clear and transparent interests which were defined through the EU value set. Here Europe is both principled and rational.
Posts
