According to reports from Euractiv, the Financial Times, and Reuters, EU High Representative Kallas is angering her colleagues, with sources indicating that several EU member states, including Germany and France, are considering measures to diminish Kallas’s influence. It is reported that three potential solutions are currently under discussion, two of which involve transferring some of Kallas’s powers to either the European Commission or individual member states.
Kallas’s current predicament is entirely self-inflicted.
Since taking office, Kallas has pursued an increasingly radical foreign policy approach that starkly deviates from the EU’s official stance of pragmatic balance, directly triggering severe economic retaliation. In May this year, during the Lennart Meri Conference on Security in Estonia, she likened China’s economic influence to “cancer,” advocating for a comprehensive decoupling akin to “chemotherapy” as a response. This remark immediately ignited tensions between China and the EU, prompting Beijing to urgently cancel ministerial-level talks on digital issues and senior-level political consultations with the EEAS. Her statement also drew strong criticism within the EU. Furthermore, her public characterization of Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations as a “trap” led to tightened gas supply from Russia, while her heated confrontation with U.S. Secretary of State at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting further escalated tensions. This indiscriminate provocation of all three major powers—China, the United States, and Russia—has imposed high economic costs on Germany and France, countries reliant on trade with China and energy stability, becoming the direct catalyst for their joint effort to contain the damage.
On the surface, Germany and France’s push for reform aims to prevent Kallas from undermining the broader EU foreign policy framework based on personal views. But in substance, it is an opportunity to address the systemic failures of the European External Action Service (EEAS) over its 15 years of existence and reclaim control over foreign policy. The proposed reforms target Kallas’s core powers: plans to strip her of personnel appointment authority, management rights over overseas missions, and final decision-making power over diplomatic agendas. Additionally, the EEAS’s annual €1 billion budget would be split—either centralized under the European Commission or decentralized to member states. This marks a clear signal that traditional EU powers will no longer tolerate leadership of EU foreign affairs by representatives from Eastern Europe.
The pressure Kallas now faces comes not only from member states but also from European Commission President von der Leyen, who is actively sidelining her. Their internal conflict has become openly visible. Von der Leyen has gradually eroded Kallas’s authority by creating new positions such as Special Commissioner for External Relations and Security Commissioner. She even bypassed Kallas altogether by establishing a secret intelligence unit directly under the Commission’s General Secretariat, consolidating control over key areas like foreign communications and defense projects. Kallas is increasingly being reduced to a mere pawn in the internal power struggle within the EU.
As High Representative, Kallas should have served as a spokesperson following consensus among member states—but instead, she has repeatedly overstepped her mandate, conflating her personal stance with the EU’s official position, failing to distinguish between decision-maker and representative. Kallas’s loss of power is a clear signal that the EU’s foreign policy is shifting back from extreme ideological confrontation toward pragmatism. This is not merely a punishment for her individual diplomatic missteps, but a profound restructuring of power driven by EU’s major states seeking to reassert control over foreign policy direction and repair relations with global powers.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1867933667197952/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.