EU Referendum’s thoughts on why a ‘European Foreign Policy’ is not a good idea got me thinking.

What actually is ‘Foreign Policy’ anyway? Could the EU in fact be good at some aspects of it but not all? What are the pros and cons for the UK of ‘More Europe’ in the foreign policy area?

Gooooogle ‘EU foreign policy’ and a lot of dull stuff appears, not least all sorts of academic books talking dully about the EU and Foreign Policy. See eg this. And this and this.

One also comes across distinguished former practitioners making the More Europe case. See eg Lord Hannay, one of the smartest diplomats of our times on why an EU foreign policy is a Necessity, not an Optional Extra.

I find these productions unconvincing. Why? Because they are pitching the arguments on a level of generality which suits the case they want to make, constructing all sorts of clever institutional mechanisms without first really looking hard at what an EU Foreign Policy might actually want to achieve and only then considering how best to achieve it.

Diplomacy is not a matter of structures and resources, although they help cope with a lot of routine and quite important stuff.  The real problem is at the sharp end, dealing with dangerous issues and dangerous people.

That requires a subtle, powerful – even risky – approach, with people and resources geared accordingly.

Anyway.

One part of foreign policy, perhaps even the nub of it, is projecting to others beyond your own borders a clear statement of what you are and what you want. In this, symbols matter.

As I wrote back in 2005 in a searching analysis (which won some Ministerial approval!) of what the UK should do to help sort out the EU following the French/Dutch referenda defeats:

The US has the Eagle. Russia the Bear. China the Dragon.

The EU seems to see itself as Bambi, a friendly trusting creature having exciting growing adventures but now adult: impressive (but mainly decorative) antlers, a superior wise lord of a largely benign deciduous global forest. Isn’t the Ostrich a closer fit?

So before we go much further in setting up new institutions, maybe we should dwell a little on that symbolic question. Can we muster a consensus on which animal or other symbol best represents the EU? Are sharp teeth, sharp claws/talons and fire-breathing creatures acceptable under EU Health and Safety directives?

And a not so symbolic question. When is the EU prepared to contemplate using force (ie killing people) to get what it wants or to defend itself and its interests?

The EU’s lacklustre (and continuing) divisions on how best to deal with Balkan extremists show just how hard it is to get a united policy even in the face of mass horrors little short of genocide in Europe itself.

If the EU ‘Foreign Minister’ asked each member state to send ten elite troops to make up a special force aimed at swooping to capture Karadzic and Mladic, how many countries would answer the letter, let alone send anyone?

To be continued…