Conflict in Libya reveals flaws in the European Union’s coordination capacity.
In the chorus of countries and international organizations calling for immediate action and an end to the violence in Libya, one of the strongest voices has been notably absent – that of the European Union. While individual countries within the union have independently condemned Muammar el-Qaddafi’s unacceptable use of force in protests sweeping the country, the EU has as of yet been unable to organize a unified response. Some countries, notably France and the United Kingdom, took strong positions against Qaddafi early on while others, such as Italy and the Czech Republic, urged restraint in calling for the overthrow of the 41 year ruler. In the European Union, there is no party line.
With the situation in Libya only growing more desperate, increasing pressure to act is revealing serious problems with the EU’s ability to coordinate foreign and security policy. Much of the criticism of the EU’s failures in this matter have been directed at the new post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, created by the recent Treaty of Lisbon. Previously lauded as a solution to policy coordination, this new office may well be dead upon arrival.
Blood Brothers
A look at the vast differences in bilateral relations between Libya and EU countries helps explain the variation in response. Italy is very close to Libya, both geographically and economically. Hydrocarbon imports are of particular interest to Italy, who relies on foreign suppliers for more than 86 percent of their oil, with Libyan crude making up about 24 percent. Italian energy giant ENI currently draws more than 14 percent of their total gas production from Libya.
Italy’s geographic position as something of a land-bridge between Europe and the African continent also tempers the nation’s willingness to let Qaddafi go. Libya has historically been a jumping-off place for illegal immigrants seeking to enter Europe, and Italy has felt the strain. By the end of 2006, documented foreign citizens in Italian territory had reached 6.2 percent of the population.There are no reliable statistics for the number of illegal immigrants. Libya’s population is currently composed of 25-30 percent foreign nationals, with large numbers of refugees from sub-Saharan Africa fleeing violence in their own countries and seeking to use Libya as a transit point to Europe.
By cooperating with Qaddafi, Italy has been able to stem some of the flow of illegal immigration in recent years. This cooperation is characteristic of the close bilateral ties the two countries have enjoyed. In the wake of the Lockerbie bombings in the 1990’s, Libya was isolated by international sanctions. From 1996 onwards, however, the Italian government took steps to intensify dialogues with the ‘rogue state’ and draw it back into the international community. The current Italian administration led by Berlusconi and Qaddafi had an agreement that traded aid and support for Qaddafi’s efforts to keep illegal immigrants from leaving his shores.
A panicking Qaddafi, even in the earliest days of this revolutionary movement, has been using this as a bargaining chip. He threatened foreign ambassadors with a wave of illegal immigration if the international community did not back his rule. Without government
cooperation, this is entirely possible. Already, over 5,000 fleeing Tunisians have landed in southern Italy in the wake of the departure of former president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.
Whose Line is it Anyway?
The Treaty of Lisbon, the latest iteration of the Treaty of the European Union, addressed existing problems with foreign policy coordination by creating the position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a mouthful even for the title-loving organization. Lady Catherine Ashton currently holds the post. The representative meets with the newly created European External Action Service, the diplomatic branch of the EU, and leaders of the member states to come up with common responses to international conflicts, natural disasters, energy security and migration issues. The situation in Libya is exactly the domain of this new EU organ, and is being painfully mishandled.
Though the new branch did an admirable job in handling the crisis in Haiti, it was dealing with a much simpler phenomenon: a country crippled by natural disaster with no resources of particular interest to EU states. It would be difficult to find a dissenting opinion intentionally. The situation in Libya is the first trial by fire and points to serious flaws in the methods of arriving at concerted response. When member states do not share the same brunt of the problem or stake in the result, it is difficult to coordinate. Rather than changing the method of arriving at consensus, the Treaty of Lisbon essentially rolled three existing positions into one, named it High Representative, and hoped that it would somehow simplify the dialogue on foreign policy. It has not.
Europe’s difficulties sorting out its feet in this matter leads one to wonder: without substantial restructuring of coordination policy, what place will the European Union have in foreign policy in the future?
Caitria O’Neill is a staff writer for the Harvard Political Review
Photo credit: MSN News, The Economist