FOR A long time it looked like there might not be a deal but a compromise was emerging even as EU leaders and their police outriders zoomed into the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels.
Waiting in the foyer for them was Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, the man running the selection process as holder of the EU’s rotating presidency. Tired-looking after prolonged telephone diplomacy, Reinfeld’s sheepish bearing betrayed the strain of trying to hammer out a pact with 26 political leaders of assorted hue.
Reinfeldt, who himself was considered a candidate for the presidency of the European Council, always characterised the allocation of the two top jobs as a delicate balancing act in which the interests of many constituencies have to be satisfied.
He was trying to marry the conflicting claims of big and small states, as well as east-west and north-south interests.
It was also a question of gender balance and the right-left divide. All told, the conundrum was something of a political Rubik cube.
Weeks of haggling had proved fruitless and the sense was that Reinfeldt, for all his efforts, faced the prospect of stalemate over dinner and a long night of inconclusive political argument. A wild mushroom dish was on the menu for dinner, unscaled line-caught bass, chocolate fondant and potential for a damaging display of European disunity.
Belgian prime minister Herman Van Rompuy was essentially lined up for the presidency of the European Council, a controversial choice given his low-key political style and a man that British prime minister Gordon Brown was refusing to accept in light of his support for Tony Blair.
Yet the selection of the foreign chief was mired in confusion following the refusal of David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, to consider taking the job. Several European notables were in contention, but none had yet emerged as a candidate who might command overwhelming support.
EU leaders shook hands one by one with Reinfeldt as light faded last evening. Nearby, however, in the office of Austria’s diplomatic mission to the EU at Avenue de Cortenbergh, the situation was crystallising rapidly.
At a meeting attended by centre-left EU leaders and German MEP Martin Schulz, chairman of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Britain declared that it was withdrawing Tony Blair as its candidate for the presidency of the European Council.
Instead, Britain would instead back EU trade commissioner Catherine Ashton for the post of EU foreign policy chief. This followed a rethink by Brown in the light of Blair’s acknowledgement that he had no chance of mustering enough support to take the job.
Although Ashton is far from a diplomatic heavyweight, Brown’s proposal had potential to secure the backing of EU leaders because of the negotiating strictures on Reinfeldt and pressure to increase female representation at the apex of the EU’s institutions.
Crucial here was the demand by European socialists for one of their own to take the foreign post. With Tony Blair all but off the field, this demand was predicated on the likelihood of the presidency going to a centre-right candidate such as Van Rompuy.
With the European Commission already under the command of the centre-right José Manuel Barroso, it became a doctrinal issue for the centre-left that it would have to secure one of the top three jobs in the union.
Thus for all the political contortions behind the Van Rompuy-Ashton ticket, the duo provided the right political balance for Reinfeldt.
The upshot of the political manoeuvrings, however, is that the two jobs designed to propel the EU forward to new relevance and power in global politics have gone to individuals who are virtual unknowns in that arena.
It is only with time that the merits or otherwise of pursuing that course will be determined.
For Van Rompuy and Ashton, the task of proving themselves worthy of appointment begins immediately.
New structures: what the jobs entail
The office of president of the European Council and the strengthened foreign policy post were each created under the Lisbon Treaty, which comes into force next month. The post of secretary general of the European Council already exists, but its powers will diminish in the new dispensation.
PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:EU leaders are deeply divided over two competing visions for this post giving the sense that the first holder may well define the job for the future.
At issue is the scope of the role. Should the president be a powerful political superstar, capable of seizing the attention of the US and China for the EU?
Or should the person be more of a chairman, organising meetings and ensuring coherence in the work of the council with the globe-trotting left to national leaders?
The emergence of former British prime minister Tony Blair as early favourite for the job and his continued promotion by Britain demonstrates that the idea of the job going to a significant international figure has resonance.
However, the ascent of Belgian prime minister Herman van Rompuy as apparent favourite suggests most EU leaders adhere to a low-key vision for the post.
Nevertheless, the Lisbon pact itself flows directly from a sense in the top echelons of European politics that the bloc’s global influence is not strong enough in the face of US supremacy and the rise of China.
At the same time, some see the argument for a strong-willed international figure from a big country as strengthening the interests of the EU’s bigger members against smaller states and the European Commission.
The job description for the presidency in the Lisbon document is modest enough, but can be interpreted as a mandate for a large-scale role.
The treaty says the president shall chair the council, drive forward and ensure the continuity of its work and endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus among EU leaders.
The document also points to a significant international dimension to the job.
“The president of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the [foreign policy chief].”
The term is for 2½ years, renewable once.
FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF:This post is formally known as the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy, or "high rep" for short.
The strengthening of the post stems from the fact that the holder will simultaneously serve EU leaders and – as a vice- president of the European Commission – the bloc’s executive.
The person will also have charge of an enlarged EU diplomatic corps, which will have over 2,000 staff and be known as the EU External Action Service.
There appears to be less division among EU leaders over the vision for this post, although the true challenge will come in times of international crisis when the EU’s foreign affairs capabilities and the capabilities of its members are put to the test.
Given the EU’s experience of ineffectiveness in the global arena, the objective is to provide a stronger and more coherent external voice for the bloc.
Excellent communication skills are prerequisites for this job. Given the inevitability of divisions among EU members in global affairs – remember Iraq? – the holder will have to be a forceful figure with diplomatic credibility. Crucial in the opening period of the mandate will be the organisational aspects of creating the External Action Service.
The global financial crisis also raises the prospect that the job will have an economic dimension that was unanticipated when the Lisbon Treaty was crafted.
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:This post – now held by Javier Solana, who is also the current foreign policy chief – will essentially be an administrative one, carrying out functions currently managed by the deputy secretary general.
The holder will manage the council’s bureaucracy.
