Assessing the policies of the EU in the Middle East Peace Process in the post-Lisbon Era A neo-realist analysis

Council Conclusions in December 2009: The basis of the EU policies towards the MEPP

A few days after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, on the 8 December the Council of the Foreign Ministers of the EU had a meeting – formally the first regulated by the rules of the new Treaty – during which they discussed, inter alia, the constantly problematic Middle East Peace Process and provided a series of political solutions to the conflict.

This is one of the key documents of the EU external policies, and notably towards the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The Council Conclusions have indeed laid the basis for the following EU policies regarding resolution of the historical conflict, and for this reason the Council was the first reunion with the participation – but not the chairing - of the new High Representative the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Baroness of Upholland Catherine Ashton. Indeed, her involvement was required since she had the legitimate right to attend since her recent nomination as High Representative on the 1st of December (Informal meeting of the European Council, 2009).

In its final conclusions, the Council complains about the lack of progress in the peace negotiations process and proposes the historical EU-supported answer to the conflict. The Council is indeed absolutely clear in claiming that a “two-state solution with the state of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security” is the necessary condition to reach a reach of an agreement in the near future. (Council Conclusions, 2009, art.1). In addition to this, the Council of the EU expressed the necessity for the Peace Process to be defined under the auspices of the UN and other multilateral conferences and summits (Council Conclusions, 2009, art.1).

Furthermore, the EU also rejected the idea of the recognition of the changes to the pre-1967 borders and it also expressed the necessity for Jerusalem to be divided and to be the capital of both the Israeli and Palestinian States (Council Conclusions, 2009, art.2). The Council moreover reaffirmed its commitment to further development of the bilateral dialogues, not only with the Palestinian Authority but also with the Israeli government (Council Conclusions, 2009, art.3), through the improvement of degree of the participation of both to the international EU political framework, namely the European Neighbourhood Policy (Council Conclusions, 2009, art.3). [...]