EU “Foreign-Policy Giant”
With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (European Union constitution) now in sight, all eyes are turning to the two powerful positions that treaty creates—the EU president and EU foreign minister.
Some nations have expressed concern at just how each of these predominant EU functionaries will operate. The job specification for the EU president is largely unwritten, meaning that the job will be shaped by the personality who is appointed to fulfill it. Already, realizing the inherent dangers in this, some EU member nations have moved to seek to put some restraint on the president’s role.
But it is the EU Foreign Ministry that is presently the main focus. The position of EU foreign minister, together with the creation of the EU’s own diplomatic corps (to be known as the “European External Action Service”—eeas), are products of the Lisbon Treaty. That treaty is due for imminent ratification now that Czech President Vaclav Klaus has indicated his willingness to sign.
One source describes the EU Foreign Ministry as being envisaged by EU member nations as a “foreign-policy giant.” Commenting under a headline reflecting that view, EUobserver states, “The EU’s new foreign minister will have sweeping powers to conduct foreign policy, propose his own budget and name his own staff independently of other EU institutions, according to the latest EU presidency blueprint.”
The same source notes that “The new institution is to manage general foreign relations as well as EU security and defense projects, such as the police missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia and Afghanistan or any future peacekeeping operations in, for example, Africa. It is also set to take charge of the Situation Center, the EU member states’ intelligence-sharing hub in Brussels.”
With Germany being the prime force behind the development of EU defense, security and intelligence, this will result in the necessity for a symbiotic relationship between the new EU Foreign Ministry and Germany’s newly appointed defense minister, Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.
In this respect it is interesting to note the observations made in a defense strategy paper authored by the German Bertelsmann Group. “In this strategy paper it is asserted that a precondition for the rise of such a superpower is a European Constitution, on which basis all necessary political areas could be taken under EU control. This will at last make it possible to build a European army under the control of a Brussels high command and so under German influence, which has the nuclear potential of France and Great Britain at its disposal. In looking at further prospects, the text reads, ‘Superpower Europe is finally abandoning the idea of a civil power and is providing for itself without restriction the means of conducting the policy of an international superpower’” (German-Foreign-Policy.com, Feb. 2, 2007; emphasis mine throughout).
Almost 60 years ago, Herbert W. Armstrong declared, “The nations of Europe, directly in the very shadow of the great [Russian] menace, are disturbed, afraid, distrustful of America, fearfully anxious for a united Europe, yet too suspicious of one another to effect it unless or until a supreme authority shall appear, trusted by all, and with power and leadership to unite so many nations possessing so many rival aspirations and conflicting interests.
“Germany is the economic and military heart of Europe. Without Germany such a federation of nations is impossible. Yet the other nations of Europe will not trust Germany or a German leader. Still, in spite of this, it is probable that none but a German can provide the dynamic, inspired leadership required to organize such a political military federation” (Good News, May 1953).