Lithuanian FM urges EU reconsider unanimity rule for foreign, security policy

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys has called on the European Union to reconsider its long-standing unanimity rule for foreign and security policy decisions, suggesting that greater flexibility could enhance the bloc's responsiveness to emerging challenges. Speaking on Wednesday, Budrys emphasized that applying unanimous agreement to all aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy was outdated and hindered timely decision-making. He proposed that while the right of veto should remain intact for matters directly impacting national security, other procedural elements, such as official statements and routine steps, could be decided through qualified or simple majority voting. This call for reform echoes earlier proposals made by President Gitanas Nausėda, who had suggested using qualified majority voting during intermediate stages of EU membership negotiations while reserving unanimity for the final decision on enlargement. Nausėda has acknowledged the dual nature of the unanimity rule, recognizing both its role in safeguarding the interests of smaller member states and its potential for misuse. In a recent statement, he noted that the current framework might allow certain countries to delay or obstruct progress on enlargement, especially given the complex process involving over 130 steps. Budrys highlighted the inefficiencies of the current system, particularly in the context of the EU’s efforts to address security threats and accelerate decision-making. He pointed to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a prime example, where rapid responses are crucial. “Opening and closing negotiations certainly requires unanimity, but do we really need it for all of the more than 130 additional steps?” Budrys asked. “We could likely move faster with simpler decision-making.” His remarks suggest a growing frustration among some members of the EU regarding the slow pace of consensus-building, especially in times of crisis. The EU’s current rules stipulate that many decisions in foreign and security policy must receive the unanimous support of all member states, effectively granting each nation the power to block initiatives. This mechanism, while intended to ensure broad representation, has often led to gridlock. The debate over changing this structure has intensified in recent months as the EU grapples with how best to bolster its collective defense capabilities and streamline processes for future enlargement. The push for change reflects broader concerns within the bloc about the effectiveness of its institutional frameworks. With the war in Ukraine continuing to strain resources and test diplomatic cohesion, there is increasing pressure to modernize governance structures. Some analysts argue that adopting a more flexible voting system could help align the EU’s response mechanisms with contemporary geopolitical realities. As discussions continue, the focus will likely shift toward balancing the need for efficiency with the protection of minority rights. While Budrys and Nausėda advocate for reforms, they have not ruled out the necessity of maintaining core principles such as sovereignty and mutual respect. The outcome of these deliberations will depend on whether member states can find common ground on how to adapt the EU’s decision-making processes without compromising their foundational values.