Mounting Foreign Policy Failures Drive Push to Overhaul EU Diplomacy

Europe's escalating foreign policy failures, ranging from difficulties in securing funding for Ukraine to a disjointed response to the Iranian conflict, are driving urgent demands for a comprehensive overhaul of the bloc's diplomatic machinery.

The European Union's ongoing inability to make unified decisions—such as releasing a €90 billion loan to Kyiv, sanctioning violent West Bank settlers, and enforcing measures against Russia—highlights a systemic paralysis, according to nine EU diplomats, officials, lawmakers, and experts who spoke with POLITICO.

The stakes extend far beyond internal bureaucracy. With hostilities intensifying in the Middle East, Russia's war in Ukraine grinding forward, and transatlantic ties under pressure, diplomats warn that the EU risks marginalizing itself just as global geopolitical shifts outpace its sluggish decision-making process.

Frustration over this gridlock is becoming increasingly public. A growing coalition, spearheaded by Germany and Sweden, is advocating for severe restrictions on—or the complete elimination of—the national vetoes that currently permit a single member state to obstruct collective action.

"We should abolish the unanimity principle in the EU in foreign and security policy before the end of the current legislative period so as to be better capable of acting internationally and to be truly grown-up," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stated on Saturday, according to the German Funke Group. "All the experience that we have gained over recent weeks with aid for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia indicate this."

Last month, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson noted that discussions regarding the use of qualified majority voting for foreign policy decisions would inevitably resurface among European leaders.

This momentum comes as Hungary—facing an election on April 12—repeatedly obstructs major initiatives, including the €90 billion loan to Kyiv. Such actions have intensified fears in other capitals that EU foreign policy is being held hostage by domestic political agendas. Diplomats caution that even if Prime Minister Viktor Orbán were ousted, the foundational flaw would persist, as the unanimity rule allows any government to assume a similar obstructionist role.

"There are serious problems in how we take decisions," said Spanish Socialist lawmaker Nacho Sánchez Amor, a member of the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee. "Every month there's a new issue that highlights this trend. We have to react."

Conversely, another faction—comprising France, Belgium, and smaller member states wary of being sidelined—remains staunchly defensive of the veto, viewing it as essential to protecting their national interests.

"Launching a debate now on European unanimity rules, I think, would be the shortest way to get it in real trouble," Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters in Brussels last month.

Hundred flowers bloom

Despite these divisions, near-universal agreement exists across European capitals on one crucial point: the current system is fundamentally broken.

"Look at the sanctions on the West Bank settlers—it's a total disaster," remarked a senior EU official familiar with the matter, referencing widely backed plans to penalize extremist Israeli settlers that were ultimately blocked by Hungary. "We have 26 countries out of 27 in support, even Germany is in favor, but we cannot do anything because of one."

Like others quoted in this report, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations candidly.

Recent institutional skirmishes have only deepened the prevailing sense of strategic drift. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, have publicly clashed over jurisdictional control of foreign policy. Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot explicitly warned the Commission chief to respect her mandate's boundaries during a recent gathering of EU ambassadors.

However, diplomats and officials argue that these turf wars are merely symptoms of a larger disease, not the root cause.

"Everyone understands that the EEAS [European External Action Service] is not working as it should," noted a second EU diplomat from a country advocating for the retention of the veto. "There is a debate going on now because everyone agrees the system is not optimal... but foreign policy remains a national competence and we should not move to qualified majority voting."

Behind closed doors, deliberations are already accelerating. Informal, high-level talks among major member states are evaluating potential remedies. These include elevating the status of foreign policy within ambassador-level Coreper meetings and restructuring the EEAS to streamline decision-making, the diplomat revealed.

Yet, as the diplomat conceded, "we don't have the answers yet."

It's the veto, stupid

For many observers, the core issue remains the unanimity requirement.

A third senior EU diplomat recalled a revealing incident from 2022 involving Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó. During meetings of the EU's Energy Council—where decisions are made by a qualified majority—Szijjártó was notably aggressive.

"He was being Szijjártó... lashing out in all directions," the diplomat recounted. But unlike in foreign policy arenas, Budapest faced the genuine threat of being outvoted. "He was shocked. He thought he was still in the FAC," the diplomat added, referring to the Foreign Affairs Council. "In September [when the Energy Councils resumed] he was suddenly Mr. Charming Nice Minister."

With French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz still divided on the veto issue, think tanks and political factions are actively attempting to steer the discourse.

The center-right European People's Party has already introduced proposals to redesign the EU's foreign policy framework. In its 2024 manifesto, the group called for replacing the current foreign policy chief with an "EU foreign minister, as vice-president of the European Commission," and for the creation of a Security Council that would incorporate key partners like the United Kingdom, Norway, and Iceland.

Folding the EEAS into the Commission

Stefan Lehne, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, supports comparable structural reforms. He suggests reintegrating the EEAS into the Commission and establishing a European Security Council to facilitate swifter responses to emerging threats, such as Iranian drones and missiles.

"The fact that our foreign policy structures are dysfunctional is understood by many people," Lehne told POLITICO. "Foreign policy and security challenges are totally different from what they used to be. And to have no innovation in this area is strange to say the least."

The proposal to fold the EEAS into the Commission enjoys some support, "namely in the cabinet of the president of the Commission," Lehne added.

Nevertheless, skepticism persists.

"I think the Commission would very much like that," observed a fourth EU diplomat regarding the proposed integration, while a senior EEAS official dismissed the concept entirely: "Well, people write papers—that's their right."

For Sánchez Amor, the dilemma hinges more on political resolve than on bureaucratic architecture.

"We should use the fact that there are so many problems in decision making to think seriously about this: Let's gather the Council, the Parliament, the Commission and the high representative to talk about this," he urged, though he cautioned against initiating formal treaty changes.

Still, others maintain that the underlying disease requires a far simpler diagnosis.

"The basic problem has not changed, the basic problem of foreign policy is unanimity," concluded the third senior EU diplomat. "You can create 1,000 institutions. As long as you have unanimity, it can never work properly."