The Belgian foreign minister could well be speaking for others in his criticism of the British EU commissioner, writes ARTHUR BEESLEY
IN THE 18 months since her appointment, EU foreign policy chief Cathy Ashton has often been at the receiving end of private complaints over her uninspiring performance.
The criticism reached a new level last week when Belgium’s foreign minister Steven Vanackere expressed disquiet publicly about her lack of verve.
“We can accept that some react faster than Ashton, but with the condition that she can prove that she is working for the medium-term and long-term on very important issues like energy, for example, but I have not seen this either,” he told Le Soir.
Vanackere holds his own job in a caretaker capacity only because of endless political bickering in Belgium.
Thus his complaints about the confusion in Europe’s foreign policy met with predictable jibes about the disarray in his own country.
Still, pungent criticism of the baroness from a serious fellow like Vanackere reflects wider concern.
Despite the grand ambition of the Lisbon Treaty, the effort to bring greater coherence and clout to Europe’s foreign policy does not seem to be working well.
The sovereign debt explosion last year redirected some of the focus away from Ashton, who was plucked from the relative tranquillity of the European Commission’s trade portfolio to take charge of foreign policy.
The “Arab spring” though changed all that, presenting a series of grave challenges to Europe on its own Mediterranean doorstep.
Vanackere pointedly said he was “reluctant to be only positive” about the response.
He lamented Europe’s disunity, and noted the absence of a central player in this arena. The Germans, French and British have been stepping into the breach, he said. This is a common refrain around Brussels. Vanackere merely said in public what others have no compunction saying in private.
The question now is whether this was simply a frank expression of frustration with no ulterior motive or whether something else is at work.
It could well be the latter.
To many close observers Ashton’s job is next to impossible. On slippery questions of huge strategic and political significance she must speak for 27 countries whose interests are diverse and whose own foreign policies vary widely.
It is a gruelling task, especially when her diplomatic corps is in its infancy, even more so when her own political inexperience is taken into account.
However, EU leaders knew exactly what they were getting when they appointed Ashton.
Far from being a diplomatic colossus with magnetic media appeal, she was short on charisma and had little by way of track record in international affairs. This was no secret.
Ashton was somehow expected to overcome all that, establishing herself as the “voice of Europe” in the global arena and putting her own imprint on some of its trickiest policies. As Vanackere suggests, it’s not quite a roaring success.
On the really big issues she struggles to convey a sense that she is in charge of the policy. While it may well suit the most powerful member states to retain their supremacy here, this dents their declared objective of speaking with one voice.
Again and again Ashton was upstaged by larger beasts as the turmoil took root in the Middle East. There was more of the same last week after Osama bin Laden met his death.
She did not feature at all when European Council president Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission president José Manuel Barroso issued a forthright response to the killing early on Monday morning.
Her own reaction was not released until after 9pm in Brussels. She was in New York, complicating matters, but the boat was long gone.
It is difficult to say right now whether Vanackere has set a ball rolling. In the diplomatic community, however, it is openly speculated that Ashton will be under very close scrutiny as she responds to events in the coming months.
It is a testing time. Muammar Gadafy remains resolutely in situ in Libya despite a months-long air bombardment; the situation in Syria worsens daily; and sectarian violence has erupted in Egypt. Palestinian leaders, meanwhile, are preparing to declare statehood in September.
Furthermore, troubling frailties in Pakistan lie brutally exposed by the bin Laden killing.
All of this demands a deft response, the right word at the right time and a persuasive sense of command and aplomb.
Vanackere wants better from Ashton and he is not alone. Whether any other minister endorses his stance remains to be seen, but other governments could just as easily lean on their MEPs to do their bidding if they felt the need to exert pressure in public.
Ashton remains the British EU commissioner, but the Labour government which appointed her is long gone from office. This leaves her more vulnerable than she might otherwise be.
Not for the first time, the chatter in Brussels suggests she may not see her five-year mandate through.
One to watch.