Kaja Kallas, the EU's foreign policy chief, is facing criticism and a potential revamp of her role following a French government document that proposed significant changes. Critics cite her outspokenness and perceived lack of consensus-building as key issues.
The criticism and potential restructuring of the EU's foreign policy chief role highlight deep-seated challenges in the bloc's decision-making processes and its ability to project a unified global stance. It underscores the tension between national interests and the pursuit of a cohesive European foreign policy.
Kaja Kallas, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, is facing significant backlash and calls for a potential revamp of her role, stemming from an informal document linked to the French government. The paper outlined three options for the position, with one aiming to expand her competencies into trade and economic development, while the other two would substantially weaken her mandate by shifting powers to the European Commission or member states.
Kallas responded by reiterating that the EU treaties clearly define the roles and responsibilities of its institutions, including her own mandate. Critics, however, have become increasingly vocal about their dissatisfaction with her performance, citing her strong stances on China, her advocacy for using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine, strained relations with the US administration, and a perceived tendency to advance ambitious plans without prior consultation with member states.
Some diplomats acknowledge that Kallas has struggled to build alliances within the Council and that her approach sometimes reflects her past role as Estonia's prime minister, advancing personal opinions rather than consensus positions. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has been a vocal critic, calling for her dismissal multiple times. While some diplomats disagree with the specifics of the French proposal, they concede that Kallas has faced intensified criticism.
Beyond Kallas herself, deeper structural issues are identified as contributing to the challenges. The current institutional setup places the High Representative between the European Commission, where she serves as a vice president, and the European External Action Service (EEAS), which she leads. Furthermore, EU foreign policy decisions require unanimity among member states, effectively giving individual capitals veto power and limiting the High Representative's control over policy direction.
Some diplomats argue that the role of High Representative is structurally flawed and destined for failure regardless of the individual, citing the limitations of the tools available and the inherent divisions within the Council. The fact that Kallas hails from Eastern Europe and maintains a hard line on Russia has also fueled political backlash from some Western and Southern European nations, who may favor more direct engagement with Moscow.
Adding to the complexity are growing tensions between Kallas's office and the European Commission, which under Ursula von der Leyen has increasingly positioned itself as a "geopolitical" actor. This perceived overreach by the Commission has, in some instances, undermined the High Representative's mandate. Some diplomats suspect that institutional infighting between the Commission and the EEAS may have contributed to the release of the French document.