8. Foreign Policy Decision-making: the US and the EU Compared

One way of contrasting the current relative capacities of the US and EU to exert weight on the international stage is to contrast their respective foreign policy decision-making processes.

The key difference between the US and the EU in the determination of foreign policy is that in the US foreign policy decision-making is largely invested in a single office, that of the President, while in the EU decision-making is conducted by the member states reaching agreement (which must be unanimous) at the intergovernmental level.

 

		International Agreements		United States		European Union
				President sets goals President determines specifics of agreements President negotiates(Senate ratifies Treaties)		Council of Europe sets the general goals Council of Ministers determines the specifics of agreements Commission negotiates for the EU
		Deployment of Military Force		Presidential decision (except in the case of war, when it is a Senate decision)		Council of Europe initiates the process Council of Ministers makes the decision to deploy military forces - unanimity is required for action Commission prepares the recommendation on details of implementation Council of Ministers makes the decision on implementation - by Qualified Majority Vote
		Foreign Policy Establishment		A single establishment reporting to the President		15 foreign policy establishments plus EU Commission plus EU Directorate General for External Affairs
		Intelligence Establishment		National Security Council coordinates intelligence from the Armed Forces and CIA		15 separate intelligence establishments and no separate EU intelligence apparatus or institutions

The above table illustrates the pronounced differences between the European Union and the United States in terms of foreign policy decision-making. In short:

• Foreign and defense policy-making in the EU, particularly during crises, is likely to be slower and less decisive than in the case of the US.
• The US president has a single foreign policy establishment to implement policy and a single security body to coordinate the provision of intelligence (i.e. the National Security Council). In contrast, there are 15 foreign policy establishments in the EU (one in each country) that must implement a common EU position. And, there are a series of national bodies providing intelligence to their respective governments, but no equivalent EU body to provide intelligence to the Commission.

As a result of the duplication of intelligence work amongst the EU member states, it is not unreasonable to expect the EU member states to develop a range of very different understandings and perspectives on different foreign policy defense issue areas. In consequence, the process of reaching unanimous agreement on policy is likely to be complicated. Moreover, in crisis situations where time is short, agreement is much more likely to be around a set of principles and a more general EU position than in favor of a detailed and incisive plan of action.

In short, current processes of decision-making in the EU limit the extent too which the EU can effectively play a role on the international stage commensurate with its economic weight and the situation is unlikely to change significantly in the near future.