Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. Secretary of State, is famously quoted for a statement he likely never made: “I can’t figure out who to call to speak to Europe.” This question, which first emerged in the rotary-phone era, remains unanswered in the age of Zoom. As Europe grapples with its role in global diplomacy, the need for a single interlocutor for the outside world has become increasingly urgent. With peace talks over the war in Ukraine potentially on the horizon, Europe desperately wants a seat at the table. However, finding a representative who can stand alongside Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Volodymyr Zelensky is proving to be a complex task.

The Challenge of European Representation

With over 40 countries that seldom agree on much, Europe typically sends multiple representatives to voice its interests. However, this approach is not feasible this time. Donald Trump, who is guiding the initial talks, is unlikely to grant Europe more than one seat at the table. Ukraine has asked Europe to find a single name, but has not specified who it might be.

The most straightforward solution might be to turn to the top brass of the European Union. One of its “presidents,” the head of the European Council, is meant to represent the EU at the head-of-state level. However, nominating António Costa, the current incumbent, would isolate Britain, a major source of Ukrainian support. Costa, a former Portuguese prime minister, is a backroom operator by nature, and taking on the envoy job would hinder his day-to-day responsibilities. Additionally, Trumpians hold the EU institutions in contempt, thinking them a supranational deep-state blob ripe for disruption.

Potential Candidates for the Role

One obvious candidate for the Euro-mantle would be a national leader. Once, the job would have fallen to Angela Merkel, chancellor of Europe’s richest country and broker of its thorniest compromises for over a decade. However, her probable successor, Friedrich Merz, is still in the process of forming a coalition following elections on February 23rd, and has a full plate.

France’s Emmanuel Macron has a strong claim to the role. He dealt with Trump during his first term and showed a decent rapport in a meeting at the White House on February 24th. Macron’s vision for Europe’s “strategic autonomy” from America looks prescient given recent events. However, hawks in northern and central Europe do not trust him much, least of all on Russia, with which he wanted to open a “strategic dialogue” on security before 2022. Macron has made efforts to engage those countries and has at times sounded just as hawkish as them, for example, by being among the first to suggest that European troops should be sent to Ukraine.

Alternative Candidates and Challenges

Those who oppose Macron might plump for Donald Tusk, Poland’s prime minister and former president of the European Council. Poland grasps the Russian threat acutely and spends the most on defense as a share of GDP among NATO countries. However, Poland has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine and has a sometimes-tetchy relationship with its leadership. Tusk unwisely disparaged Trump while he was out of office and shares foreign-policy oversight with the Polish president, who will be replaced in June and might not share Tusk’s views.

Spain is far from Ukraine, and its prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, is not among its most vocal supporters. Sir Keir Starmer thinks Britain can be a “bridge” with America, but Brexit has left it isolated in Europe. Giorgia Meloni is an ideological ally of the American president but has yet to resolve how to be both pro-Ukraine and pro-Trump. Sending a respected leader from a smaller country, like Petr Pavel, a retired general turned Czech president, would once have been a typical Euro-compromise. However, Trump would no doubt start proceedings by belittling the consensus pick.

The Path Forward

Macron appears the sensible choice. He wants the job and has convened groups of European leaders in Paris already. He made a point of consulting his fellow bigwigs widely ahead of his three-hour chat with Trump this week. Those unsure of his geopolitical instincts could suggest underlings to balance them out. Kaja Kallas, the hawkish Estonian who heads the EU’s foreign-policy arm, would make a fine representative facing the American secretary of state in preparatory talks.

It is part of Europe’s history and its charm that it cannot easily put forward one person to act for all. But that is the sort of luxury that comes from being primarily a soft power, and these are hard-power times. Europeans must understand that having a single envoy at the negotiating table who flusters some is better than squabbling far away from it.

Recent Developments and Practical Applications

As Europe continues to grapple with its role in global diplomacy, the need for a unified voice becomes increasingly clear. The recent elections in Germany and the ongoing political chaos in France highlight the challenges Europe faces in finding a single representative. However, the potential for a strong, unified European voice could have significant implications for global diplomacy, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine.

For U.S. readers, the implications are clear. A unified Europe could be a powerful ally in global diplomacy, working alongside the U.S. to address pressing issues such as climate change, nuclear disarmament, and international security. Conversely, a divided Europe could create additional challenges for U.S. foreign policy, potentially leading to a more fragmented and less effective international community.

Counterarguments and Criticisms

Critics may argue that Europe’s diverse interests and political landscapes make it impossible to find a single representative who can effectively speak for the entire continent. However, the need for a unified voice in global diplomacy is too pressing to ignore. While Europe may never achieve perfect unity, finding a representative who can stand alongside world leaders is a necessary step toward a more effective and cohesive international community.

Some may also argue that the U.S. should not be concerned with Europe’s internal politics and should focus on its own foreign policy. However, given the interconnected nature of global diplomacy, the U.S. has a vested interest in a strong and unified Europe. By supporting Europe’s efforts to find a single voice, the U.S. can help create a more stable and effective international community.