EU abroad ministers completed their gathering in Wicklow on 2 September without agreement to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Kaja Kallas admitted that there is neither a concrete proposal from the European Commission nor a majority for action. EU abroad policy is one more time stuck in the dispute between associate States.
Meeting in Wicklow without a decision
European Union abroad Ministers met on 1 and 2 September in Irish Wicklow. The informal gathering in the Gymni expression was intended to supply a free discussion of the main problems of abroad policy. Official programme of the Irish Presidency provided for 3 working sessions and a final press conference.
One subject was the ban on trade in goods originating from Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium are among the countries that are most committed to EU action. The talks ended without a common position.
The EU advanced typical for abroad Affairs and safety Policy Kaja Kallas acknowledged that associate States did not receive a circumstantial proposal for a ban from the European Commission. There is besides no political majority required to decision to action. This exposes the fundamental problem: a community that can regulate the economical life of citizens in detail, with a tough global dispute, remains without a decision.
International law speaks clearly
The dispute does not concern the legal position of the settlements themselves. International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 has confirmed that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been established and are maintained in violation of global law. The Court besides pointed out the work to immediately cease fresh settlement activities.
Nevertheless, the Union cannot even agree on a regulation on trade with areas covered by illegal settlement. deficiency of decision means maintaining the current state of affairs. Goods can proceed to enter the EU market, while political declarations of defence of global law are losing credibility.
The line between criticism of Israel’s politics and the attitude toward Jews as a nation or spiritual community must not be obscured. The subject substance of the dispute is simply a circumstantial settlement policy, assessed by global law institutions. It is the work of the decision-makers and those who commit violence, not the collective.
Union strong in declarations, weak in action
Kallas felt that a decisive decision would send a clear signal. However, the declaration itself will not replace the legal draft, the vote and the implementation of the decision. When Kaja Kallas announced extended sanctions against Russian military industryBrussels stressed the request for economical force to defend global standards. In the case of Israeli settlements, the same consequences were lacking.
Double measurement besides harms Poland. Our country has a vital interest in ensuring that the ban on acquiring and perpetuating control of another people's territory does not depend on political convenience. Russia tests the strength of these principles in Ukraine all day. If the law is to apply selectively, the argument of states defending their sovereignty against the aggression of a stronger neighbour is weakening.
EU unanimity can be presented as a warrant of respect for the will of states. In practice, it frequently becomes a mechanics of idleness. In turn, the effort to circumvent opposition by qualified majority raises another problem, as it can take control of abroad policy from capitals. Europe needs the cooperation of sovereign states capable of taking work for their own position, not another national competence delegated to officials.
States can act alone
Lack of agreement at EU level does not deprive countries of their ability to act in accordance with their laws and global obligations. It is the capitals, not the impersonal Europe, that are liable to their own citizens for commercial and diplomatic decisions. National sovereignty is not an obstacle erstwhile the government has clear political will. It's a tool of responsibility.
The situation in the West Bank besides requires a fair description of the effects of settlement on Palestinian residents. The case of Kusra shows the force of settlers and the action of the Israeli army, and a wider dispute concerns land, safety and the anticipation of a sustainable Palestinian state. No slogan or selective boycott will solve it. Consistent rules, civilian protection and the work of circumstantial perpetrators of force are needed.
Wicklow brought another gathering and another confession that there was no agreement. For Poland there is simply a clear lesson. The fundamental interests of the state must not be given back to a strategy which, on fundamental matters, can debate for a long time but cannot decide.
Source: Kresy.pl, Irish Presidency of the EU Council, Agence Europe, global Court of Justice.
