EU Foreign Policy and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict: How much of an Actor?

Abstract

This article aims to analyse the EU's evolving involvement in the management and resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. By using the framework of EU ‘actorness’, it argues that the EU has had the ‘opportunity, presence and capabilities’ to be an actor in the conflict. Developments in the international and EU contexts, as well as in the conflict itself, both allowed, and at times forced the EU to be more active. As a result the EU has become a more important actor in the conflict space. Yet this occurred at the expense of the EU's decreasing distinctiveness as an actor.

Notes

1. Charlotte Bretherton and John Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor (London and New York: Routledge 1999).

2. Elena Aoun, ‘European Foreign Policy and the Arab–Israeli Dispute: Much Ado About Nothing?’, European Foreign Affairs Review 8 (2003), p. 291.

3. The oil crisis led to a similar tilt in the policy of another close US ally, Japan, a country also very much dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

4. Francois d'Alancon, ‘The EC Looks to a New Middle East’, Journal of Palestine Studies 23/2 (Winter 1994), p. 42.

5. Aoun, ‘European Foreign Policy and the Arab–Israeli Dispute’, p. 291.

6. European Council, Venice Declaration on the Middle East, 12–13 June 1980, available at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/mepp/decl/index.htm#10 accessed on 5 November 2007.

7. Geoffrey Kemp, ‘Europe's Middle East Challenges’, The Washington Quarterly 27/1 (2003), p. 165.

8. Rosemary Hollis, ‘Israeli–European Economic Relations’, Israel Affairs 1/1 (1994), p. 125.

9. The concept of ‘strong mediation’, in contrast with ‘pure mediation’, refers to the use of leverage through promised benefits or threatened punishments. Only major powers are considered to be power mediators. See Ronald J. Fisher and Loraleigh Keashly, ‘The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and Consultation Within Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention’, Journal of Peace Research 28/1 (1991), pp. 33–4.

10. For more on the EPC see Bretherton and Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, pp. 164–6.

11. Aoun, ‘European Foreign Policy and the Arab–Israeli Dispute’, p. 292.

12. D'Alancon, ‘The EC looks to a New Middle East’, pp. 41–51.

13. Joel Peters, Pathways to Peace: the Multilateral Arab–Israeli Peace Talks (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs 1996), pp. 46–60.

14. The selected fields were communications, transportation, energy, tourism, agriculture, financial markets and investment, trade, training, regional networks and bibliography. Available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Regional+Economic+Development+Working+Group.htm?DisplayMode=print accessed on 11 December 2007.

15. D'Alancon, ‘The EC looks to a New Middle East’, pp. 47–8.

16. 1998 onwards direct budget support of the EU almost completely ceased as the PA was able to ‘fund its budget through taxes, duties and the money transferred by the Israeli authorities on the basis of the Paris Protol.’ Muriel Asseburg, ‘The EU and the Middle East Conflict: Tackling the Main Obstacle to Euro-Mediterranean Partnership’, Mediterranean Politics 8/2 (2003), p. 176.

17. European Council, Lisbon, 26–27 June 1992, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/1420/01/Lisbon_june_1992.pdf accessed on 12 November 2007).

18. For changing security perspectives on the Mediterrenaen after the end of the Cold War see, for instance, Roberto Aliboni, ‘Re-Setting the Euro-Mediterranaen Security Agenda’, The International Spectator 33 (October–December 1998) available at http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/iai/iai_98alr01.html accessed on 31 December 2007. For the analysis of the reconstruction of the Mediterrannean from a critical security perspective see Pinar Bilgin, ‘A Return to “Civilizational Geopolitics” in the Mediterranean? Changing Geopolitical Images of the EU and Turkey in the Post-Cold War Era’, Geopolitics 9/2 (Summer 2004), pp. 269–91.

19. Paul-Marie de la Gorce, ‘Europe and the Arab–Israel Conflict: A Survey’, Journal of Palestine Studies 26/3 (Spring, 1997), pp. 5–6.

20. Israel at times of crisis did not want to let the EU envoys to meet with the other party. See, for instance, the news on the BBC website, ‘EU Team Meets Israeli Leaders’, 4 April 2002, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908989.stm accessed on 13 December 2007.

21. Pia Christina Wood, ‘Chirac's “New Arab Policy” and Middle East Challenges’, Middle East Journal 52/4 (Autumn 1998), pp. 563–80.

22. Roland Dannreuther, ‘Europe and the Middle East: Towards a Substantive Role in the Peace Process’, in R. Dannreuther (ed.), European Union Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a Neighbourhood Strategy (London: Routledge 2004), p. 9.

23. Martin Ortega, ‘A New EU Policy on the Mediterranean?’, in Judy Batt et al. (eds.), Partners and Neighbours: A CFSP for a Wider Europe, Chaillot Papers, No. 64 (September 2003), p. 100, available at http://www.iss-eu.org/public/content/chaile.html accessed on 1 November 2007.

24. In addition to Javier Solana, the other members of the Mitchell Commission were former Turkish President Suleyman Demirel; Thorbjoern Jagland, former Norwegian Foreign Minister; Warren B. Rudman, former US Senator; and George J. Mitchell, former US Senator (chair).

25. Aoun, ‘European Foreign Policy and the Arab–Israeli Dispute’, p. 308.

26. The mission was originally established for 12 months. On 24 May 2007 the Council adopted, by written procedure, a joint action extending for a year, until 24 May 2008, the mandate of the mission.

27. European Council, Presidency Conclusions, Berlin, 24–25 March 1999, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/ber2_en.htm#partIV accessed on 12 December 2007.

28. Nathalie Tocci, The Widening Gap between Rhetoric and Reality in EU Policy towards the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict, CEPS Working Document No. 217 (January 2005), p. 15, available at http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1190& accessed on 15 December 2007.

29. The EU observer missions for presidential and legislative elections have cost €2.5 million and €3 million respectively.

30. European Commission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/israel/index_en.htm accessed on 12 November 2007.

31. Tocci, The Widening Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in EU Policy, p. 14.

32. European Commission, available at http://www.delwbg.ec.europa.eu/en/eu_and_palestine/overview.htm accessed on 12 November 2007.

33. Brussels European Council, Presidency Conclusions, 15–16 June 2006, available at http://consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/90111.pdf accessed on 10 November 2007.

34. TIM operates through three ‘windows’: ‘Window I—provides essential supplies and covers running costs for health, education and social services. It is implemented through the World Bank Emergency Services Support Programme (ESSP); Window II—ensures access to electricity, health care and sanitation through fuel delivery. It is entirely funded by the European Commission; Window III—provides relief to vulnerable and poor members of the Palestinian society through direct cash assistance. Support goes to 77,000 low income cases (among public service providers) and 36,000 social hardship cases. In 2006 the European Commission made available a total of €101. 75 million to the three TIM windows. In 2007 the Commission has so far committed €265 million through the TIM.’ Available at http://www.delwbg.cec.eu.int/en/eu_and_palestine/overview.htm accessed on 27 November 2007.

35. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/occupied_palestinian_territory/index_en.htm accessed on 10 December 2007).

36. Richard Youngs, ‘The European Union and Palestine: A New Engagement’, 28 March 2007, available at http://www.opendemocracy.net accessed on 27 November 2007.

37. Statement by the Middle East Quartet, available at http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/796f8bc05ec4f30885256cef0073cf3a/f7bfba5a60965b6e852572a6004b42d2!OpenDocument accessed on 2 December 2007.

38. Christopher Hill and William Wallace (eds.), The Actors in European Foreign Policy (London: Routledge 1996).

39. Christopher Hill, ‘The Capabilities–Expectations Gap, or Conceptualising Europe's International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies 31/3 (1993), pp. 305–28.

40. Christopher Hill, ‘Closing the Capabilities–Expectations Gap?’, in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds.), A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge 1998).

41. Bretherton and Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, p. 24.

42. David Allen and Michael Smith, ‘The European Union's Security Presence: Barrier, Facilitator, or Manager?’, in Carolyn Rhodes (ed.), The European Union in the World Community (Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Reinner Publishers 1998), p. 48. For a further elaboration of the concept see Bretherton and Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, p. 27.

43. Bretherton and Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, p. 28.

44. For the argument that the EU cannot be considered only as a civilian power see Karen Smith, ‘Still “Civilian Power” EU?’, European Foreign Policy Unit Working Paper (2005), available at http://www.arena.uio.no/cidel/WorkshopOsloSecurity/Smith.pdf, accessed 20 November 2008.

45. Israeli officials in fact have been referring to increasing understanding and better relations between Israel and the EU. See, for instance, the interview with Israeli ambassador to the EU, Ron Curiel, at http://www.ejpress.org/article/21980 accessed on 12 December 2007.

46. Joseph Jupille and James Caporaso, ‘States, Agency, and Rules: The European Union in Global Environmental Politics’, in Rhodes (ed.), The European Union in the World Community, pp. 214–17.