European diplomacy stuck between two ambitions

(BRUSSELS2/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 Member States. Quite simply because we cannot erase 100 years, 500 years of history, different political and geographical positions. It completes it, strengthens it, sublimates it where necessary.

Speaking with one voice, a bad slogan

“Speaking with one voice” as it is often mentioned, for European diplomacy is undoubtedly an objective but a bad slogan. He sets the bar too high. And necessarily, it generates both dissatisfaction and gnashing of teeth. Between those who believe that a single voice requires other voices to be silent and those who believe that a single voice means nothing, there are a thousand nuances.

The vocation of European diplomacy is undoubtedly – ​​in my opinion – not to have a single voice but “a single message” said 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 good big 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 identify (and punish) the hiccups, and shows the right path.

The right timing is not found

However, 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 area of ​​Trade (where the Commission is the leader of the negotiations) or the single market (where the Commission can send warnings to 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 impetuosities.

As a result, most of the head of European diplomacy seems more turned towards herself and not towards the outside. She is waiting for her finger on the seam, to have authorization from so and so, to have a common position, before acting (which is logical and consistent with her mandate) but requires them to then line up behind its banner (which is not in accordance with the autonomy of the Member States). We are faced with contradictions that go beyond the simple person of Cathy Ashton and the simple circumstances of the moment. We will have to, at some point, think about adapting in a practical, pragmatic and political way the structures resulting from the Lisbon Treaty 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 therefore incomprehensible that management of the “Tunisia” file is not entrusted – after the critical phase – to the Commissioner for Enlargement (Füle). Ditto for Haiti which must be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and International Cooperation (Georgieva who has more certain qualities). It would also not be unthinkable to entrust the file of Transnistria, Serbia-Kosovo or “Middle East” to a current Minister of Foreign Affairs, or rather to a former minister or former prominent MEP, who would have the task to bring the matter to the political level and thus illustrate all the work carried out by the European diplomatic service, often in a serious manner but (unfortunately) poorly highlighted.

Each of these characters would have the task of summarizing, in the name of the High Representative, the “external” position of the Union. They could even relieve the High Representative of certain “thematic” functions which need 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 respond – and the High Representative in particular (1) – that this possibility is not permitted by the Treaty or that it requires modification. I don't believe it. 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 saw all the possibilities that could be taken from a situation where nothing is allowed, nothing is forbidden. European construction is teeming with examples. In this case, there is – in my opinion – no need to resort to the innovative genius of lawyers. It is enough to apply practice and the Treaty to cover both aspects of the function of Cathy Ashton (High Representative and European Commissioner).

On the Community side, the practice often allows the chief of staff to represent his commissioner at meetings of the European Commission. This is all the ambiguity of the position of High Representative where Cathy Ashton also remains a British commissioner, therefore responsible for defending the interests of the “country” (2) within the European Commission. It may therefore be necessary to enhance the position of head of cabinet and completely relieve him of other tasks to enable him to devote himself fully to traditional community work... On the High Representative side, the Treaty provides for a position, 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 quite broad but the hierarchical connection is precise enough – mandate defined by the Council, under the authority of the high representative – so that it does not give rise to too much slippage. This allows, in my opinion, 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 instigate this reorganization, these vocations and these taking up of functions, and not to castrate them. This will allow her to have more time for “sudden crises” that require her attention. This obviously carries a risk: that everyone plays a different part. And his authority crumbles. But I'm not sure the outcome of the current situation is any better. Day after day, not only does the authority of the High Representative melt away like snow in the sun. But also its legitimacy. It is urgent to react by using all the possibilities of the Treaty to give a second wind to 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 (Tory) MEP, 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 planned by the Treaty” before continuing in a joking tone that she did not want people “to then blame her for creating additional positions”. Nice response which had a nice effect in the hemicycle, causing everyone's joy... But a slight response, 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 with a mandate in relation to particular political issues. The special representative exercises his mandate under the authority of the high representative.”