Earthquake in Haiti: is there a pilot in the European plane?
(BRUXELLES2) We can actually ask ourselves the question. Is there coordination of European foreign aid policy
aid on Haiti? What is Europe doing today? The Haiti crisis was a test crisis for the new system resulting from the Lisbon Treaty. What has Europe done? No less than yesterday? But no more and no better. As usual, she took out her checkbook to pay the humanitarian organizations and the UN enough to act quickly. Experts went to the field to assess the damage. Humanitarian experts (from the European Humanitarian Aid Office ECHO) and from the "civil security" crisis unit. The COPS met. But when it comes to coordinating relief, concerted, coordinated action, it's a desert.
There was a lot of talk about this subject yesterday in the European Parliament. And Catherine Ashton, the High Representative, was the subject of many questions, sometimes very critical. One of them was: wouldn't Ashton have done better to be in Port au Prince than in Brussels or Strasbourg? OThis question can legitimately be asked. Corn was that his role? For C. Ashton, it is clear. Responding to MEPs who criticized her, she said "I had nothing to provide on the ground other than taking up valuable space as planes were unable to land due to the state of the airport. I am not a doctor or a firefighter. My place was to bring together coordination at EU and UN level ". The first element of defense is a bit specious. Because it was always possible to get a seat in one of the many planes departing from Belgium, the Netherlands or France. The second element is more relevant. C. Ashton is not a commissioner for humanitarian aid, but a political officer. And his job was that. But I'm not sure that in terms of relief organization and political weight, that would have been the right point. And in terms of political visibility, the
presence on the spot of the Americans and the UN would undoubtedly have masked the presence of C. Ashton. (2)
Hush! Don't say anything we act
No special representative. Of course, having a European representative on site would have been a bit of a challenge. And would have marked a political presence. This is the weak point in my opinion. Nothing prevented C. Ashton from appointing, immediately, a special representative to go on the spot, coordinate relief, with sufficient weight to ensure a visible political presence. An experienced technician or even a slightly heavier political weight. We are not short of big names who could certainly have taken over easily.
Why not Emma Bonino? Eh yes. I'm sorry. But Emma, the EU's special envoy to Haiti, would have had immediate political weight. But it's obvious that she would have stolen the show a little" from the others.
A late meeting of development ministers. Compared to the first emergency crisis, the meeting of the 27 was very late. It was valid only for the reconstruction phase. One might wonder why a slightly more solemn meeting of Coreper or Cops could not have taken place very quickly to illustrate this European cooperation.
No overall balance sheet. The European Commission has been unable, today as yesterday, to provide global figures of all the human, aerial and relief resources committed by the 27. We always stick to a list which enumerates all the national resources. This site was the only one to do so.
No political reaction. The coordination of civil security, we have been talking about it for almost 10 years. Guy Verhofstadt reminded him. Michel Barnier, who wrote an excellent report and whom I met in the corridors, was boiling with impatience, almost enraged that his report had remained a dead letter for 4 years (it was submitted in 2006). We did not take advantage of the event to bring out this file. And push it politically. The meeting of Heads of State and Government on February 11 could be an opportunity. But this will be the last on this crisis. After the pressure of the news, and therefore the political pressure will fall.
No visibility. The EU has not failed to act. But nothing was done to publicize this action. A crisis meeting bringing together the highest
responsible for humanitarian action, military, civil security... took place every day. No communication on this point. No photos even available. Damage. We don't stick to the traditional: Hush! Don't say anything, we act. The problem today in politics is different. We must act and say it.
As Marielle de Sarnez, MEP for MODEM, says: “the more appointments we make, the more functions and titles we create, the less we exist. And this should make us wonder. How many more disasters will it take for the leaders of the European Union to finally live up to their responsibilities? ».
(1) The official name is MIC = as monitoring and information center
(2) And there was the American presence. The fact that we work closely with the American authorities is also an important element of our current and future action.“said Ms Ashton.
Hello,
I write from abroad, and my keyboard does not allow accents. I am sorry. No, Mrs. Ashton was not supposed to be there. The trips by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Ban-ki Moon were, as in most of these cases, public relations operations. “Finding a seat on a plane” does not correspond to reality. With arrivals of VIPs like Clinton, the entire airport remains closed for security reasons.
Crisis response is ECHO's business. But ECHO is not an operational service with its own teams. ECHO works with operators that it finances.
That ECHO could do more in terms of visibility is a gap that has been going on for years. Usually visibility is reduced to logos on the packages distributed – which the recipients don't give a damn about.
Send an ECHO coordinator: well maybe yes maybe no. As in most of these disasters there is a mismanagement of who coordinates what? In principle it should be UNOCHA. Is it the commander of the American troops? The UN, Europe? There is no coordination agreement mechanism.
C. de Hennin
“Nothing prevented C. Ashton from immediately appointing a special representative to go there, coordinate relief, with sufficient weight to ensure a visible political presence.” Special representatives are appointed by the Council on a proposal from the High Representative pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union. So it's not that simple.
“Nothing prevented C. Ashton from immediately appointing a special representative to go there, coordinate relief, with sufficient weight to ensure a visible political presence.”
Special representatives are appointed by the Council on a proposal from the High Representative pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union. So it's not that simple.
Europe will only exist in this particular area when it has the means to match its ambitions. Is it so difficult to constitute a European civil security intervention force? (By asking European countries to each have a dedicated unit of the French UIISC type) Is it so difficult to set up a European fleet of heavy transport aircraft and helicopters dedicated to civil security interventions? Is it so difficult to constitute a European fleet of Canadair and fire-fighting helicopters? Is it so difficult to establish the bases resulting from these creations on the bases deserted by the armed forces in Europe? For ships, the question is more problematic, but why could Europe not start building a hospital ship and entrust it to one of the countries of the Union?
Incidentally, a delegate from the Union could usefully have gone by regular line to the West Indies, then use one of the French Casas which makes connections with Haiti to be there without interfering with the relief operations. But, on the other hand, it annoys me when I see politicians playing the handlers for a few minutes in front of reporters. At least we avoided this media ridicule.