Very early from Stockholm to Brussels. Can EU really be a force for reforms and the rule of law in its neighbourhood? That's the issue now.

31.01.2011 05:51 via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@carlbildt

Carl Bildt

The right question to pose – but what prospect for any answers?

For the EU reaction to developments in Egypt has been somewhere between bland and non-existent. EU High Rep Cathy Ashton released two statements on Thursday and Friday last week, and President of the European Council Herman van Rompuy released a statement on Saturday. More from Kosmopolit here. These public positions do not go beyond a basic iteration of the need for non-violent behaviour on both sides, and for respect for human rights. Importantly there’s no mention of what should happen in Egypt, no way forward. Let’s not forget: Egypt is very much within the EU’s sphere of influence.

Presumably due to the lack of any coherence from the EU, Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy did get together to release a statement on Saturday – it’s stronger in its tone, and calls on Mubarak to commit to the reforms he has promised. It also mentions the crucial issue of keeping communications routes open. These words from the leaders of Europe’s big three countries are similar in tone and direction to Obama’s statement on Friday.

So with three European leaders essentially jumping the gun and being more concrete in their demands, where does that leave the EU’s efforts to achieve a coherent voice in international affairs?

In all of this the vacuum at the very centre is deafening. Van Rompuy has many responsibilities, so the critique should not rest with him.

No, the buck stops with High Rep Ashton.

Why has she been incapable of mustering up some strong words? Putting herself about on television, explaining what the European Union could be doing? Phoning Member State governments to deliver a statement of the 27 (rather than just 3) on Friday last week?

It’s not even as if a consensus would be that hard to achieve on this. Even Italy is proposing a crisis mission. The problem here is a lack of guile, a lack of guts, a lack of determination to push for a proper EU foreign policy.

We’re now a year on from Ashton’s appointment, and this is not the first time we’ve been in a situation like this. There have been rumours about her commitment to the job, and she’s even needed a letter backing her from the UK and Sweden in the past. I see no prospect for any improvement, and because of the three EU countries going it alone on this issue, it seems a number of Member States see things the same way. It’s a public statement that they don’t back her, and that putting a weak person in the EU’s top foreign policy job was not in the interests of the larger member states as they perhaps once thought.

Ashton needs to be removed, and replaced. Now. Otherwise the EU is going to stagger from one foreign policy crisis to the next between now and 2014, and we can’t afford that to happen. Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron – if you can collaborate on Egypt, how about collaborating on forcing a change at the top in Brussels?

[UPDATE - 1700]
In the meantime things have moved on – Ashton has been a little more concrete before today’s FAC meeting, and Bildt has tweeted this. Le Monde has also had a go at Ashton (paywalled, so I can’t read all of it). Vihar Georgiev has also written a good post about the statements of EP President Jerzy Buzek throughout all of this. While Buzek might lack the formal responsibility of Van Rompuy or Ashton he’s always ready to stand up for the cause of freedom and democracy, and do it in stronger terms than anyone else at EU level. Long may it continue.

[UPDATE - 31.1.2011, 2150]
Marietje Schaake (who has been saying the right things on Egypt as she does on so many foreign policy / human rights matters) has just pointed me towards Ashton’s press statement today. I cannot begin to describe how lousy those words are – even worse than Ashton’s statements at the end of last week. Pitiful.

[UPDATE - 1.2.2011, 1730]
The Charlemagne blog of The Economist has a roundup of goings-on around Ashton and the foreign ministers. Ekathimerini (in English) takes a similar line. Neither piece proposes a way forward though. Coincidentally David Miliband yesterday made an appearance in Parliament in Westminster – although not on foreign policy.

Chris Patten - CC / Flickr

Following on from my post about Bildt and Fischer, today is the time to look at two other strong candidates for top jobs in the EU, this time both of them Brits – Chris Patten and Tony Blair. I’m prompted to write this post after the FT carried a story that Patten would be “very positive” about the idea of taking the EU Foreign Minister position later this year.

Firstly, Patten. My first reaction was ‘hell, that’s going to really annoy David Cameron’, and secondly ‘isn’t he too old’.

On the first point, Patten, a former Chairman of the Conservative Party, has been causing a few problems for Cameron and the party leadership lately. He was opposed to the idea of the Tories leaving the EPP-ED group in the Parliament, prompting the young turks in the Tory Party to have a go at him. William Hague has already stated he found Patten’s statement “unwise”. So where is all of this coming from? Surely all of this bears the hallmarks of Gordon Brown and scheming in Whitehall; what better way to hammer home the Tories out of the European mainstream message than appointing one of their own to a top EU position, contrary to Cameron’s wishes?

Secondly, does Patten really have the stomach for this? When he stepped down as a European Commissioner in 2004, then aged 60, these were the lines in the BBC story:

The European commissioner, who lost his seat as MP for Bath in 1992, said he planned to retire, taking up writing, broadcasting and do some “serious gardening”.

“This is the last public service job I will do. When I finish it, I will be 60 and I would like to enjoy my sixties as much as I can,” he said.

There’s also an interesting interview with Patten given at the time in the New York Times. Is he the right person to be haring around the world for the next five years?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt he could do the job, and I also have a lot of time and respect for Patten. But somehow I cannot see all of the pieces of the jigsaw falling into place to make this happen.

Tony Blair - CC / Flickr

The second strong candidate for a top EU position, Tony Blair, this time rumoured to want the position as President of the European Council, a job that would be created if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. Here the case is much more clear-cut than for Patten. There’s no way politically in the UK that Brown could not be seen to be backing Blair for this job (despite all the bad blood between the two in the past). The problems however are elsewhere. Blair is strong, charismatic, outspoken, and followed the USA to war in Iraq contrary to the wishes of France and Germany. OK, that was in 2003, and Blair still has decent working relationships with some member states, but if Bildt, Fischer or Patten are divisive figures then multiply it by 10 for Blair. CEP Blog has a breakdown on how the voting could work. Yet even after the horrors of the Czech Presidency of the EU and some sort of longing for leadership and coherency in the Justus Lipsius building I cannot see how a consensus for Blair could be achieved.

So I reckon Patten, Blair, Bildt and Fischer are all strong non-starters.

[UPDATE - 6.8.09]
A strong, personal case for Patten is made at Crooked Timber.

Carl Bildt - CC / Flickr

If the second referendum in Ireland on the Treaty of Lisbon this autumn goes yes then the EU is going to have a new foreign policy chief from 2010. The Treaty of Lisbon creates the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, aka EU Foreign Minister, merging the current positions of High Representative for CFSP and External Relations Commissioner. So who is going to be in the running?

If it were only to be judged by the amount he puts himself about then Carl Bildt, Swedish Foreign Minister, would probably be a runner. He’s also in the limelight as Sweden currently has the rotating Presidency of the Council. Foreign Policy has a profile of Bildt, and the FT Brussels Blog has more on the power games about the appointment. Essentially the argument goes that Bildt is too outspoken to get the job – people are wary of him because he’s not an in-the-shadows character like Javier Solana. I’m no fan of Bildt from his record as Swedish PM but his experience in foreign affairs is vast and in a Europe controlled by right wing parties then better have a strong and knowledgeable person in the position than a dull technocrat.

Fischer Poster - CC / Flickr

The outstanding foreign affairs figure on the left who would make an excellent EU Foreign Minister would be former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. He’s been lacking a role since the end of Schröder’s red-green coalition yet, like Bildt, he’s a pugnacious and knowledgeable individual, someone who would be capable of giving the EU a real voice in foreign affairs.

So what hope that either of these individuals get appointed? Close to zero. Member states would sooner go for some dull technocrat as that makes their lives easy. There’s no way for public pressure to change it (a bloggers’ campaign for Bildt anyone? Not from me anyway) so don’t hold your breath waiting for a new and coherent EU foreign policy.