ANALYSIS:The EU has taken its great leap forward – by appointing to two key Lisbon Treaty positions two figures who are virtually unknown...
THE EXTRAORDINARY ascent of Belgian prime minister Herman Van Rompuy and Britain’s commissioner Catherine Ashton to two of the most prestigious posts in the EU smacks of retrenched ambition for the bloc. Days before the Lisbon Treaty comes into force after years of institutional introspection, EU leaders have handed the task of advancing the revamp to two figures of little renown.
Van Rompuy, an intellectual centre-right economist, will be president of the European Council while Ashton, who has never been elected to public office, will be foreign policy chief, a strengthened portfolio created to ensure the EU’s voice is heard above the din in the battle for influence in global affairs.
The choice of two virtual unknowns for these jobs could ensure the supremacy of José Manuel Barroso, the former Portuguese premier embarking on his second term as European Commission president. Without a hint of subtlety, it also stands as a fraught attempt to keep Britain within the EU fold in the face of Eurosceptic antagonism and the likely return to power of the Conservatives.
These forces combined to catapult figures mostly untested in top-flight diplomacy to pre-eminent authority in the union, which faces a daunting economic challenge after the deepest, longest and most broad-based recession in its 52-year history. It will be for them, too, to plot a course for the bloc in the outside world in matters as diverse as the environment, international security and terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
How things change. A year ago Van Rompuy was leader of Belgium’s lower house of parliament. Even after the prime ministerial vacancy arose after a court scandal linked to the banking crisis, he had to be persuaded by King Albert to take charge. At the same time Ashton was but weeks into her job as trade commissioner, chosen by way of convenience following Peter Mandelson’s unexpected return to Westminster. Her elevation from the obscurity of Lords would turn out to be the first of two surprising advances in European politics.
Van Rompuy and Ashton are each said to have performed well since taking up their jobs, but neither comes to their new posts with serious political or moral clout. If each seems unlikely to outshine those who anointed them over dinner on Thursday night, the conclusion must be that that was exactly the outcome most EU leaders wanted. In the hours before the deal, Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt signalled that proven heavyweights were not in line for the posts when he warned of a “minimalist solution” that would curtail the EU’s “opportunity to have a clear voice in the world”.
For all the earnest talk of bringing the union closer to the 500 million people it serves, the secretive carve-up that brought “le ticket belgo-britannique” to the fore was at odds with the lofty values of transparency and accountability. Far from the best and brightest getting the jobs, the selection became a zero-sum game in which allegiance and political acceptability were overarching concerns. Although this was in many ways inevitable, the outcome prompted bewilderment. “We always knew this would boil down to the lowest common denominator. We didn’t realise the lowest common denominator would be so low,” said one EU source.
Van Rompuy – a consensus man of noted seriousness, but lacking in political pizzazz – had already emerged as favourite when the campaign of former British prime minister Tony Blair ran foul of European socialists. Six years after Blair aligned himself with George W Bush on the war path to Baghdad, it seems Iraq still rankles badly.
Yet the vision Blair offered for the presidency of the council was in line with the bloc’s high aim to stand side-by-side with the great powers in global affairs. This was akin to the role foreseen by former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing, chief promoter of presidency proposal in the political forum whose plans are encapsulated in the Lisbon Treaty. By way of a “modest suggestion” last weekend, Giscard put forth the proposition that EU leaders should imagine their chosen candidate forcefully defending EU positions before Barack Obama or Chinese president Hu Jintao when making their decision.
The grand vision was brushed away as Van Rompuy’s candidacy gained strength. His favoured status during the latter phase of the race implied most EU leaders had adopted a modest prospect for the post, looking inward rather than outward.
In some quarters, this has been interpreted as nation states asserting their primacy in preference to handing new prominence to the EU in the form of a powerful council president. On the other hand, a strong president would be a clear boon to member states in their constant power struggles with the commission.
Either way, Van Rompuy became the man to beat when Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, ditched his support for Blair and aligned himself with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.
As backing for Van Rompuy crystallised elsewhere, however, Brown was still holding out for Blair. He was unyielding on that front even as his foreign secretary David Miliband considered and rejected an opportunity to take the EU foreign policy post.
This led to paralysis as Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, manager of the process as holder of the bloc’s six-month rotating presidency, appeared incapable of achieving consensus in advance of Thursday’s summit. As the moment of truth loomed, however, Blair concluded the game was up and withdrew his name. While that left Van Rompuy in prime position for the presidency, the destination of the foreign post was still shrouded in uncertainty. Numerous names had been floated, but none appeared have overwhelming momentum.
Soon enough the political apparatus in Downing Street clicked into gear. Brown decided to put forward three names for the foreign post. The first was Mandelson, Brown’s bulwark in cabinet. The second was Geoff Hoon, a former defence secretary. The third was the unlikeliest of all, Ashton.
Spanish premier José Luis Zapatero had his own candidate in Miguel Ángel Moratinos, but Ashton carried the day when the left group in the European Parliament agreed to support her nomination. Mandelson and Hoon were deemed unacceptable, it seems.
The speed of the decision to support Ashton – in defiance of her apparent lack of specialist foreign relations expertise – was indeed remarkable.
While the merits or otherwise of pursuing that course will only be seen in time, support for a candidate of her broad political background flowed from arcane strictures that are probably unique to the EU.
To appease the big voting blocs in the European Parliament, it became clear early in selection process that the council president and foreign policy position would each have to come from opposing sides. Only a centre-left foreign policy chief could go with a centre-right president and vice-versa.
A further consideration, evident from the outset, was a push at the very top of European politics to preserve one of the top positions for Britain. Notwithstanding Britain’s self-exclusion from the euro and the Schengen visa-free travel zone, informed officials implied decisions were made at very high levels to ensure that was the case.
Barroso seemed to suggest as much on Thursday when he said “Great Britain must be at the heart of our project”.
Van Rompuy and Ashton will be put to the test in the unforgiving crucible of international affairs in the coming months and years. Their task now is to overcome hostility to the contorted manner of their selection, avoid error and surpass modest expectations.
Arthur Beesley is Europe Correspondent