The European Parliament wants new steps to be taken to improve the “Europe Common Foreign and Security Policy”. There is a lot of work to be done to improve the efficiency of EU in the international arena. In this framework, the EU needs to improve cooperation with the UN. Indeed, this step would not be enough alone. Europeans must attach the same meanings to common concepts. But the necessary maturity for this has not emerged yet…

The EP demands the “common action” of EU and members in the future. The EP wants to ensure European Union’s producing solutions for international problems. To that end, the EP does not want time to be wasted. But in order for that to happen, intense, tiring, and well-intentioned efforts are necessary. All important developments in the international arena show that leader countries hold the monopoly of the foreign policy of the union. The patronage of the leader countries in the EU mostly present itself in foreign and security policies.

When the weights of Germany and France in the international basis and in inter-states systematic converge with their enviable status within the Union, there are many arguments to think that in the future as well the EU will seek the interests of Brandenburg and Versailles instead of “Europe’s foreign policy”.

Although the EU is a supranational system, it is repeating the experiences of previous supranational systems that were established again in Europe. There were similar problems in the Holy Roman Empire experience in Europe. Just like in those times, today no one is willing to step back from its national and regional interests for the sake of supranational efforts defined by others and presented to its approval. EP members are complaining about the inadequacy of the budget spared for Europe Common Foreign and Security Policy. Also they seek more activities and more effectiveness. But minds are confused…

In this context, both the idea of “launching a close strategic partnership” with Russia and the idea of “not launching a partnership or whatsoever with Russia until it secures values like democracy, human rights, and state of law” exist in the EP…

Likewise, from the point of the Russia-Georgia war, the EP believes that the South Caucus crisis made it clear that the EU needs to make its presence felt in neighbor countries in the east. Although this idea and assessment has a point, it is also a fact that not all countries do agree about the extent of this idea.

The same approach is also visible in issues like “Iran”, “Iraq” and “Afghanistan”. EP members are in desire of cooperation with these countries in trade, energy, regional stability, law, democracy, respect for human rights, and good-governance. Indeed, there is also emphasis on “lasting peace”, “energy security”, “fight against terrorism and other crimes”. As it seems, in relations with the EU, Obama has faced a more positive cooperation climate in comparison to what Bush had faced.

However… On the part of EU member countries, partnership in security and diplomacy is not an easy issue. There might be some cases upon which, all member countries agree. Some basic principles might be met with optimism in all European capitals. The same optimism cannot be expected in all complex and multi-dimensional issues. London and Paris, Rome and Stockholm, Berlin and Warsaw might not share the same views on all issues. For instance, when you just mention “Russia”, the images that pop in the minds in Berlin and Warsaw are not the same.

On top of that, the European Union is undecided about which path to follow for some Eastern Europe countries which are going through tough times due to the economic crisis. Prime Minister of Hungary, the country hardest-hit by the crisis, Ferenc Gyurcsany made a very strong warning by saying : “We should not allow another Iron Curtain that separates Europe into two”. Promised a “heaven on earth”, Eastern European countries are displeased with Union’s calling off the 180 billion Euro aid package that was due for Central and Eastern Europe.

“All countries in Central and Eastern Europe are not in the same situation. Each country can be helped in time of need, but huge rescue packages are not logical.” These statements of Chancellor Merkel deeply disturbed many new members of the EU. They were expecting more from the EU they thought was powered with the motion “One for all, all for one” and the knights’ tradition.

Gyurcsany’s warning that “a new Iron Curtain should not emerge in Europe” shows that Central and Eastern Europe countries feel themselves “alienated”. These countries want to join the Euro-zone rapidly to strengthen their economies. But in Brussels, Central and Eastern European countries’ demands of easing the criteria of the Euro-zone are not accepted. In short, “there is no aid, there is no Euro”…

Such developments make it difficult to have a common stance and approach among members. Likewise, the lack of a common stance and approach is being effective both “within and outside the union”. Besides, a series of institutional and bureaucratic problems make things even more difficult.

The EU attaches great importance to the “Union for the Mediterranean” project. Although everyone agrees on this issue, bureaucracy sets a serious challenge. Europe called on Mediterranean Parliamentarian Assembly to unite with Union for the Mediterranean Institutions. In this process, 27 EU members and 12 South Mediterranean countries will come together.

The Barcelona Process in line with the work based on EU/EUROMED should avoid “the duality of the institutions of the two unions”. However, the unity of Europe and Mediterranean is having difficulties both by the institutional confusion and by the “opinion difference” in the aftermath of the incidents in Gaza.

The Left Group in EP believes “the latest attack on Gaza should not go unpunished”. Socialists supported by Liberals, however, defend prioritizing larger issues to improve political relations with the region like international trade”. Other than that, the Union for Europe and Greens Group demand following a policy on “non-governmental” basis and “improvement of relations between South and North”.

Another issue that is as important as the improvement of common stance and approach on foreign policy and security is the “money” issue. Like all others, the crisis is also affecting Europe. A sign of those effects is visible on Union for the Mediterranean issue. France demands an extensive budget for the Union for the Mediterranean project. France believes nothing more can be achieved with the present budget. The basic issue that disturbs France is that Brussels prefers using resources for improving relations with the East rather than improving relations with the Mediterranean. The East Partnership introduced by Brussels covers EU’s eastern neighbors. Being similar to the Union for the Mediterranean, the project won priority because of Russia.

Simply, if the Mediterranean is important for Paris, the East is as much important for Berlin. If the reason of not conducting common policies is the lack of common stance, not having common worries is the reason of lack of common stance.