Something does not quite fit in the eternal debate about a visible face of the European Union on the international stage. When "Mrs. Europe", as the president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is known, is established as a central figure in the European machinery, no one is satisfied. But when the EU suffers from insufficient visibility and influence in its foreign action, neither.
It is logical. From our European mentality, we would like the Union to mature enough to attribute to it the leadership that any prime minister has on a national scale. But from our mentality as a Member State, we are reluctant to grant Mr. or Mrs. Europe powers that exceed their competences.
And it is so because, in some areas, the EU is the voice of the Europeans, and, in others, it is nothing more than the transmission belt of its member states. The internal market is almost that of a European federation, while, in foreign policy, the EU is still an intergovernmental forum participated by 27 state capitals.
This explains why Von der Leyen's early activism in Israel received a harsh rebuke from member states. The European Council issued a statement to set out "the EU's common position in relation to the ongoing situation in the Near East", shortly after the impromptu trip in which Von der Leyen expressed her unequivocal support for Israel's response to the terrorist attacks of Hamas.
There are two things that are certain: the European Commission has no powers in defining the EU's foreign policy, which is agreed by the member states, and in its support for Israel Von der Leyen overlooked the basic components of the EU diplomacy in the Middle East conflict.
The Council's conclusions have always been based on two basic principles: the necessary respect for international humanitarian law and the advancement of the two states, Israel and Palestine, as a political solution to the conflict. Not the "Israel has the right to defend itself, today and in the coming days", pronounced by the President of the Commission shortly after the terrorist attacks were committed, an unvarnished formulation during her visit to Tel-Aviv, which which many interpreted as carte blanche to Benjamin Netanyahu for his actions in Gaza.
To make matters worse, the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, the Hungarian Olivér Várhelyi, announced on social networks the suspension of aid to Palestine, a decision that amounted to a violation of the code of conduct of the ·legium of commissioners and which was denied after a short time by other authorities.
The fact is that even the United States, Israel's staunch ally, has issued more measured messages since the beginning of the crisis. The Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, met in Jordan with the leader of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmud Abbas. President Joe Biden concluded his visit to Tel Aviv with an agreement to allow humanitarian aid in and reminded Netanyahu that the incursion into Gaza, if it ends up taking place, must be based on the principle of proportionality.
Aware of the cacophony and controversy generated by the European response, High Representative Josep Borrell qualified Von der Leyen's words and, in turn, redirected the EU's position towards its central postulates. The European Parliament asked: "Why should regretting one tragedy [in Israel] take away our moral strength to regret another [in Gaza]?". European foreign action is mainly based on values, aware that it lacks the power and resources necessary to be able to act as other international powers act.
If it wants to lead by example, as it has tried to convey during the war in Ukraine, the EU must wield the primacy of international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter as vectors of its diplomacy. If cutting off the supply of water, electricity or gas is a war crime in Ukraine, it must also be a war crime in Gaza. Or if the civilian population cannot be the target of war in Kyiv, neither can it be in the strip. Otherwise, the ground will be ripe for accusations of hypocrisy and a double standard in the European approach to international conflicts - accusations that China, Russia, Brazil or other actors in the Global South never tire of repeating -.
The problem of European diplomacy does not lie, therefore, in who is its visible face, but in the task and powers that we want to give to this figure. And as long as the EU's foreign policy continues to resemble a choral orchestra, at least let its actors sing in unison.
