Last week, the British parliament voted against UK involvement in any military intervention in Syria. Mark Shaw writes on the impact the vote has had elsewhere in the EU. He notes that with France still firmly committed to taking part, Europe remains deeply divided over the issue. This ensures that while the EU took a leading role in imposing sanctions on Syria, it will be largely powerless in shaping the international response going forward.
In the House of Commons on 29th August, David Cameron commented that one of the key differences between the 2003 Iraq War and the situation in Syria was that ‘then, Europe was divided over what should be done; now, Europe is united in the view that we should not let this chemical weapons use stand’. However this statement of common purpose seems to exaggerate the degree of unanimity among EU states. While there is broad agreement that the use of chemical weapons represents a heinous violation of international norms, there is a marked disagreement as to how to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad’s regime. This disunity was pointedly underlined by the rejection of military action by the House of Commons, the first time a British Prime Minister has lost such a vote since 1782.
The failure to agree on a course of action among key European countries, and between Europe and the United States, emphasises the degree to which opinion is divided on intervention and poses questions about the potential for future co-operation between European states in this contentious area of foreign and security policy. Indeed, the decision by the House of Commons to keep Britain out of any military action makes the European position on Syria more divided than ever.
The rejection of a rather vague government motion to support ‘legal, proportionate’ military action ‘if necessary’ represents a significant moment in both the path of British foreign policy and the development of a consensus between the major European states over what action to take against Syria. The dynamics of the ‘special relationship’ with the United States has meant the UK has followed closely the foreign policy direction of the US, particularly in the Middle East region. In the post-9/11 era, successive British governments have supported military interventions without UN authorisation, on the basis of ‘coalitions of the willing’, and often without independently verified evidence from impartial sources, such as UN weapons inspectors. The vote in Parliament has prevented David Cameron from pursuing this lock-step of policy with the US over Syria. Whereas the Prime Minister was careful to insist that Syria ‘is not like Iraq’, MPs were clear in their response that – unlike before the Iraq conflict – clear and sound evidence would be required before any intervention could be considered.
In contrast, the view of France, and in particular President Hollande, has been clear. Insisting that the rejection of the UK government’s position in Parliament would have no effect on France, the President stated that ‘France will be part of it. France is ready’. This follows a recent pattern of French interventionism, including in Libya and Mali. However, the splintering of a coalescing group of countries willing to support military action seems to have had unexpected consequences on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, President Obama announced his intent to seek authorisation from Congress to pursue military action, which he said would make the US ‘stronger, and our actions will be even more effective’. Strikingly, Obama directly referenced the House of Commons vote in his justification for seeking congressional support, citing ‘what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week’. In France, pressure for a similar formal authorisation has intensified in reaction to the British and American votes, with Jean-Louis Borloo of the UDI calling for the President to ‘organise, after the debate, a formal vote in parliament’. This may constrain the ability of President Hollande to commit France to any action without observing the precedent set by Britain and the US.
But what of the other states in Europe which might have the capacity to assist in any military action? Here the true scope of European disunity about the way forward becomes clear. In Germany, Chancellor Merkel, facing upcoming elections, has been extremely cautious in expressing any support for action against Syria. The clearest statement of her position came in an interview with the Augsburger Allemeine when she described the use of chemical weapons as breaking ‘a taboo… which cannot remain without consequence’. Germany’s position is consistent with its post-Kosovo foreign policy approach – no intervention without an international mandate. The German people remain deeply sceptical of intervention in any form, and Germany notably stayed out of the NATO action in Libya. Merkel commented that ‘Germany cannot participate’ without such a mandate from ‘the United Nations, NATO or the EU’. Thus while supporting the position that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, Merkel is highly unlikely to commit Germany to any kind of military action.
This view is reflected elsewhere. The Italian foreign minister Emma Bonino took a similar line, indicating that Italy would only support military action if authorised by the UN Security Council. Therefore among the largest EU states, we see a polarisation between those states which support action without a UN mandate, and those which do not. Thus, while there is broad agreement that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, common ground on taking action in Syria is difficult to find. This is reflected in the public position of the EU. In a statement, Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative, was able to call only for allegations of the use of chemical weapons to be ‘immediately and thoroughly investigated’ by UN inspectors. This falls far short of any joint position on collective action, which contrasts sharply, for instance, with the hitherto united front presented by EU states on imposing sanctions against the Syrian regime.
The result of this division is that while it seems likely that President Obama will be able to secure congressional approval for military action, the EU, which has taken a leading role in imposing sanctions on Syria, will be largely powerless in shaping the international response going forward. The US is able to call upon a group of states which have indicated their support for action, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and several of the smaller gulf monarchies. They will, however, proceed with the support of only one major European state. This poses important questions for the EU as it tries to increase co-ordination of member state foreign policies. We are still in a world where, to quote President Hollande, ‘each country is sovereign’ and a truly ‘common’ foreign and security policy appears remote.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1cwjOQS
_________________________________
Mark Shaw – Durham University
Mark Shaw is a PhD candidate at Durham University, where his ESRC-funded project on British policy toward the European Union is focused on the interaction between the media and policy.
I’d suggest your quite wrong. EU foreign policy is more UNITED than ever. The EU is populated by pacifist nations that look to others to guard & ensure their security while they avoid the cost which they instead spend on social services & utopian dreams of peace & tranquillity. In reality the British have come in line with the rest of Europe who have to be kicked & dragged into any engagement even such obvious ones like the conflict in the Balkans. The EU conducts its foreign policy via trade that is the only tool in its box.
“EU foreign policy is more UNITED than ever”.
Yet a mere eight minutes later, on a separate article (at least going by the “recent comments” bar on this site) you’ve claimed: “There isn’t an ounce of unity in the EU when it comes to foreign policy.”
Which is it? Forget the EU, there doesn’t seem to be much unity in your own comments. The phrase “making it up as we go along” springs to mind.
I don’t see how anyone could describe the current situation with the word “unanimity”. One country (France) wants to participate in military action, other countries want to go along with it (e.g. Denmark), some governments had the intention of going along with it but have been outvoted in parliament (UK), others support some form of action, but don’t want to take part themselves without an international mandate (Germany), and then there are those who want no part in it at all (e.g. Italy and Poland).
Outside of just getting on a soapbox and ranting incoherently about Europe, I honestly don’t see what your point is in the context of Syria (what this article is actually about).
Europe is united in its disunity when it comes to foreign policy. It cant agree on what to do, It cant agree on who to do what they want with, They don’t have the capacity to be an effective ally with any other part of the world as I said the only tool in the EU’s chest is economic but the countries that need bringing to count couldn’t care less about economic sanctions. The EU had to back down in its spat with China, It has had to back down with its spat about airlines with the US. It can’t afford to risk fuel supplies from Russia with winter looming. No body in Europe wants to do anything, they want others to do it for them. If Europe wanted to impose military sanctions against rogue nations it would only be able to do so with help from the US it simply doesn’t have the means to do these jobs with its own resources as it doesn’t have any. If the EU did have military assets countries like Germany or Ireland would refuse to use them. So yes The EU is united by its disunity, watch France run for cover now the US has said they will go to congress for approval. France couldn’t even deal with Mali without a bail out from the US to help them get to a destination that even Ryanair have no trouble reaching
What you’ve presented here is really a caricature of European foreign policy. France was the only country to take a lead on Mali and its military spending is the same as a percentage of GDP as China, with the UK not far behind. To say that France was “bailed out” by the US, simply because the US helped the mission with an air bridge, is pretty ridiculous. Numerous European countries helped with the mission as well – Belgium, Denmark, Germany, UK, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden – yet presumably they didn’t “bail out” France.
Let’s be clear about this, Europeans – in particular the British and the French – have plenty of military resources. Total EU military spending in 2012 was around 200 billion euros: not as much as the US, but still a huge amount in a global context. They simply disagree on policy and therefore the EU as a whole is incapable of leading any action as a unified actor. That doesn’t mean individual states stand by and do nothing – as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, and now Syria show.
The EU doesn’t have a single viable Carrier fleet, agreed the French have the CSG but the UK doesn’t have a single Carrier anymore. The CDG has to be kept well away from the fighting because they don’t have the Submarines & Destroyers to defend it that make up a carrier fleet. Most of the money the EU spends as a whole on defence is spent the most basic of things such as manpower. The hardware in the modern world is pretty obsolete. The UK’s Type 45 destroyers are probably the best in the world but no one else in the EU can afford ships of that standard so there is no reduction in the unit costs to make it cheaper & more available. The way forward is drones & again the sane two nations are doing all the heavy lifting with the UK probably leading the way with the Taranis drone but with the Unit costs being so high who in the EU will buy them? Defence just isn’t a priority in Europe too many countries hide behind NATO & US Flags.
Now lets talk about Mali, the French needed transporters to get to & from Mali, they also needed refuelling capacity because Europe doesn’t possess any & is only starting to take delivery of airbus refuelling planes. These are horrendously expensive & everyone is cutting back on orders which will mean that Airbus will never pay back its bailout subsidy that it needed to keep the project alive.
The way forward is to scrap CAP altogether & spend the money saved on EU owned & operated assets which is the only way this can be done without putting up the cost of EU membership to the donor countries. Another option is to insist that no country should get out more than it puts into the EU.