European diplomacy stuck between two ambitions

(BRUXELLES2/editorial) The latest examples from current events in southern Europe - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya... - prove that European diplomacy does not and cannot erase the diplomacy of the Member States. Quite simply because we cannot erase 100 years, 500 years of history, different political and geographical positions. It completes it, reinforces it, sublimates it if necessary.

Speak with one voice, a bad slogan

"Speaking with one voice" as it is often mentioned, for European diplomacy is an objective, no doubt, but a bad slogan. It sets the bar way too high. And necessarily, it generates both dissatisfaction and gnashing of teeth. Between those who believe that a single voice implies that the other voices should be silent and those who believe that a single voice means nothing, there are a thousand nuances.

The vocation of European diplomacy is undoubtedly not - in my opinion - to have a single voice but "a single message" spoken in several voices and several tones. European power is its multiplicity, not its uniqueness. To take a musical image, Europe is not a sublime voice but a big fat symphony orchestra. What may seem like a cacophony can become a symphony as long as the conductor is present at all the rehearsals, knows how to spot (and sanction) hiccups, shows the right way.

The right timing is not found

But Lady Ashton, the current High Representative, has not yet found the right timing. Not so much because she didn't understand this necessity. She understood it too well. On the contrary. It scrupulously respects the Treaty (which is inapplicable as it stands) and expects States to do the same (which they do not intend to do). However, we are not in the field of Trade (where the Commission is the leader of the negotiation) or of the single market (where the Commission can address warnings to the Member States). There is no possible sanction or reward for the recalcitrant. And it is not the granting of a position within the diplomatic service to one or the other that can calm national impetuosity.

As a result, most of the head of European diplomacy seems more turned towards herself and not towards the outside. It waits for the finger on the seam, to have the authorization of such and such, to have a common position, before acting (which is logical and in accordance with its mandate) but requires them to then line up behind its banner (which is not in conformity with the autonomy of the Member States). We are placed there in front of the contradictions which go beyond the simple person of Cathy Ashton and the simple conjuncture of the moment. It will be necessary, for a moment, to think about adapting in a practical, pragmatic and political way the structures resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon which are no longer adapted to today's reality. Or at least, take advantage of all its possibilities.

Cathy Ashton must know how to delegate

It is thus incomprehensible that the management of the "Tunisia" file is not entrusted - past the critical phase - to the Commissioner for Enlargement (Füle). Ditto for Haiti which must be the sole competence of the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and International Cooperation (Georgieva who has more certain qualities). Nor would it be unthinkable to entrust the Transnistria, Serbia-Kosovo or "Middle East" file to a titular Minister of Foreign Affairs, or rather to a former minister or a former MEP in sight, whose task would be to bring the file to the political level and thus illustrate all the work carried out by the European diplomatic service, often in a serious way but (alas) poorly highlighted.

Each of these characters would have the task of summarizing, on behalf of the High Representative, the "external" position of the Union. They could even relieve the High Representative of certain "thematic" functions which require greater specificity or visibility, such as the defense of human rights or defense and security policy.

The Treaty does not prohibit anything, on the contrary

Some reply - and the High Representative in particular (1) - that this possibility is not permitted by the Treaty or that it requires its modification. I don't believe so. Because if the Treaty did not provide for the post of Deputy High Representative, it did not prohibit anything either... And, in the past, even very recent, we have seen all the possibilities that could be drawn from a situation where nothing is allowed, nothing is forbidden. European construction is teeming with examples. In this case, there is - in my opinion - not even a need to resort to the innovative genius of lawyers. It suffices to apply the practice and the Treaty to cover the two aspects of the function of Cathy Ashton (High Representative and European Commissioner).

On the Community side, practice often allows the chef de cabinet to represent his commissioner at meetings of the European Commission. This is the ambiguity of the post of High Representative where Cathy Ashton also remains a British commissioner, responsible for defending the interests of the "country" (2) within the European Commission. It could therefore be necessary to raise the post of chef de cabinet and completely relieve him of other tasks to allow him to devote himself fully to classic Community work... On the High Representative side, the Treaty has provided for a post, that of "special representative", to which is conferred"a mandate in relation to particular policy issues"and that he exercises"under the authority of the High Representative"(3). The outline of the mandate is broad enough but the hierarchical attachment precise enough – mandate defined by the Council, under the authority of the High Representative – so that it does not cause too much slippage. This, in my opinion, allows , to relieve the High Representative of certain areas of policy — defense and security in particular — which require sustained attention, especially today.

It is up to the High Representative to encourage this reorganization, these vocations and these appointments, and not to castrate them. This way she can have more time for "sudden crises" that require her attention. This obviously involves a risk: that everyone plays a different score. And his authority crumbles. But I'm not sure the outcome of the current situation is better. Day after day, not only is the authority of the High Representative melting like snow in the sun. But also its legitimacy. It is urgent to react by using all the possibilities of the Treaty to breathe new life into the function. European foreign policy deserves it.

Read also:

• Cathy Ashton? “I give him a few months or a few crises to succeed”
• Cathy Ashton, one year already… (first assessment)

(1) Or to evade the question. To the British MEP (Tory), Sir Bob Atkins, who asked her during the last session of the Foreign Affairs Committee if she intended to appoint "junior ministers", Cathy Ashton replied that this "was not provided for by the Treated" before continuing in a joking tone that she did not want us to "come and reproach her for creating additional positions". Nice answer which had a nice effect in the hemicycle, causing everyone to be happy... But a slight answer, for a much more important problem.

(2) Country and non-government.

(3) Article 33 of the EU Treaty: "The Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, appoint a special representative to whom a mandate is conferred in relation to specific political issues. The special representative shall exercise his mandate under the authority of the High Representative."