The German Times, December 2009
Europe has a direct phone number now, and neither Henry Kissinger nor any U.S. Secretary of State any longer has grounds for ridicule. “If I want to talk to Europe, what number do I call?” Kissinger once asked in the 1970s. Now Europe has a face, even two. That’s the good news. But still, Europe remains far removed from becoming a world power speaking with one voice.
The 27 EU leaders have agreed to appoint Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy to become the EU’s first longer-serving president of the European Council; British baroness Catherine Ashton takes charge as EU foreign affairs chief. That is why the champagne was flowing in Brussels to celebrate the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Dec. 1.
This leadership tandem does have a disadvantage. It does not shine the way euro-enthusiasts would prefer. Neither Van Rompuy nor Ashton has much foreign policy experience, although the Belgian leader speaks several European languages and is even rumored to speak Japanese and pen haikus.
Perhaps the critics were right when they responded to the appointments by pointing out that what Europe really needs is not so much moderators or even mediators to balance the small-minded interests of 27 states but movers and shakers who set the course of European policy and serve the interests of the EU, not its component states.
Perhaps Van Rompuy is the right man, when the time comes, to “facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council” – in the words of the Lisbon Treaty – and present reports about the council’s meetings to the European Parliament. Finding compromise was something he repeatedly managed to do in his year serving as head of his fractious country’s government. But a wheeler and dealer is rarely the one sitting in the driver’s seat.
That is why some observers have noticed only now what the architects really had in mind when they were drawing up the treaty’s Article 15. With terms of only two and a half years, those presidents who turn out a disappointment can be replaced fairly quickly – especially if they become too high profile.
There is little danger of that, so far. Rompuy has emphasized that he never campaigned for the job and that his personal political convictions – such as those regarding Turkish accession, which he rejects – would take a back seat.
Ashton also emphasized that she was not an “ego on legs” and that the appointment “slightly surprised” her. It appears that the new High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy will be a waitress rather than the cook.
In fact, Ashton’s appointment is far more controversial than Rompuy’s and it is not without irony that she is British – she is not allowed to calI herself “foreign minister” because of British objections when the treaty was drafted. But that was not the main reason so many observers were shocked. Ashton has none of the qualifications that people in line for this kind of job usually require, particularly experience in diplomacy and foreign policy. Yet that is how Ashton always moved up the ladder – without being elected, without specialist knowledge.
In earlier years, she campaigned against nuclear power and for minorities, including children and homosexuals. She served as undersecretary in the departments of Education and Skills, Constitutional Affairs and Justice, before Gordon Brown sent her to Brussels in 2008 as European Commissioner of Trade.
The two newcomers had to endure patronizing, even malicious comments immediately following their nominations. The general tone was one of: Rompuy, okay. But Ashton? How is someone who understands nothing about foreign and security policy and is completely at sea on the diplomatic stage supposed to build up the European External Service, an institution with up to 8,000 employees? That, wrote Martin Winter in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, “borders on deliberate obstruction of European foreign policy.”
Of all the papers, the conservative daily Die Welt was among the few to come to Ashton’s defense. London correspondent Thomas Kielinger praised the “quiet but efficient way” she had won allies in all her political offices, even among the opposition. “Lord McNally, one of her colleagues, extolled her seductive manner,” wrote Kielinger. Under her leadership, the House of Lords – unlike the House of Commons – passed the Lisbon Treaty with a comfortable majority. Kielinger also identified her “way of negotiating and persuading” as a major asset.
How did these controversial nominations come about? Former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga told the Daily Telegraph that the European Union works “like the former Soviet Union.” British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also called the EU appointment process “akin to Kremlinology.”
These are gross exaggerations. Even though it would be a good thing if Europe’s citizenry got the chance to elect not only their parliamentary representatives but the top jobs as well – if only through the European Parliament – the Stalinist analogy does not hold up. The leaders of the EU’s 27 member states were elected by the people, directly or indirectly. If the national leaders select candidates to represent Europe in their names and according to their wishes, the process cannot be called undemocratic and certainly has nothing in common with totalitarianism. Even in a popular election, Vike-Freiberga would not have been elected to European office.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the real reason behind the nomination of this relatively inexperienced duo could be that the leaders who appointed them fear being eclipsed by two bright new European political stars.
To prevent that, they may have settled on the wrong criteria that candidates would have to meet. Two conditions were decisive: One of the representatives had to come from a small European country and one had to be a woman – as the women’s parliamentary caucus unanimously demanded ahead of the decision.
Coming from a bigger EU country or being male would have been just as bad. Many other objective criteria come to mind that would have been far more appropriate, with experience – especially in foreign policy – topping the list. Assertiveness would also have been welcome.
If such people will not be at the levers of European power, it’s mainly because of Nicolas Sarkozy (France), Silvio Berlusconi (Italy), Gordon Brown (United Kingdom) und Angela Merkel (Germany). They conducted the real horse-trading.
Also involved in the decision-making process over dinner and champagne were: Werner Faymann (Austria), Boyko Borisov (Bulgaria), Dimitris Christofias (Cyprus), Jan Fischer (Czech Republic), Lars Lokke Rasmussen (Denmark), Andrus Ansip (Estonia), Matti Vanhanen (Finland), George Papandreou (Greece), Gordon Bajnai (Hungary), Brian Cowen (Ireland), Valdis Dombrovskis (Latvia), Andrius Kubilius (Lithuania), Jean-Claude Juncker (Luxembourg), Lawrence Gonzi (Malta), Jan Peter Balkenende (Netherlands), Donald Tusk (Poland), José Sócrates (Portugal), Emil Boc (Romania), Robert Fico (Slovakia), Borut Pahor (Slovenia), José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (Spain) and the current Council President Fredrik Reinfeldt (Sweden).
These were the people who elected “Mr. EU” and the “foreign minister.” Perhaps Merkel really meant what she said to the nonplussed media: Give the new representatives a chance to develop, to grow into their jobs. That would be good for Europe. Perhaps they will distinguish themselves. We should expect the opposite, though.
Europe urgently needs distinguished leaders, so that 500 million people stop misunderstanding the EU as a faceless bureaucracy. The new faces could give Europe something like an identity. That will happen only once they are allowed to show strength and not if they look like the students or lackeys of Europe’s regional princes. If they act resolutely, Europe will act resolutely.
Europe’s 27 heads of state and government and the Commission president would be well advised to let the new people do the jobs they have been elected to do.
If Europe’s national leaders prove once again to be petty nationalists and guardians of their own power, they will remain the focus of sarcasm from all the Kissingers of this world. In the final analysis, the powerful could ignore Europe.