No European military HQ: a personal failure for Cathy Ashton (Maj)

(BRUSSELS2) Discussions on the idea of ​​a European military HQ broke down on Monday (July 18) in the Council of Foreign Ministers, over the British veto. For who reads this blog, it is not a surprise (*). And the British minister, William Hague, left no doubt about the margin of negotiation. He repeated that " this government like previous governments (and future governments) did not accept and would never accept this idea ". Then he repeated the traditional British arguments: risk of duplication with NATO structures, higher cost than existing structures, improving structures may be enough.

British isolation

But William Hague found himself rather isolated around the Council table. The Member States all agreed on the interest of this project, even if some (such as Ireland, which is still very cautious about the EU's military advances, or Lithuania) insisted on expressing certain nuances. This near-unanimity, on this delicate subject, testifies to a clear evolution since the "summit of Pralines" where France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg were rather the only ones to propose this option of a European HQ facing the clan of "Iraqis " (countries which defended the intervention in Iraq).

However, the High Representative did not take advantage of this balance of power which worked in her favor and immediately preferred to present a compromise proposal. This proposal amounted to a downgrading of its ambitions, since reference was no longer made to “report options” but only to possible options. A small correction, apparently innocuous, which in fact meant a real step backwards, a real stripping since it amounted to removing the mandate given to it by the Board to work on one of the two options presented (**).

A reconstituted Franco-German couple

This proposal was not really welcomed by the Council. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, having had to be absent, it was his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle who defended the position of the "Weimar" (Germany, France, Poland) and refused the new wording. " It doesn't suit me or Alain. » he explained. " This is not what our fellow citizens want. We need a European HQ. We want to mention report options. he mentioned in substance according to the remarks which reported to 'B2'.

Several ministers around the table agreed. " The discussion was difficult “, recognized at the end of the meeting, the Polish Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, according to my Polish colleagues. Corn " the vast majority of countries believe that we must continue to work on the basis of the report, studying in detail the possibilities offered, obviously taking into account the costs ". But the High Representative preferred to draw the conclusion from " lack of agreement on the conclusions. Too bad we will not make conclusions on the subject she explained, seemingly in a hurry to move on and bury her own report.

A first-class burial which the member countries of the Weimar triangle do not want. At the end of the meeting, they published a press release (*) in which they recall in particular that: " The High Representative's report remains on the table. Our three countries would like it to continue working on this basis, with the Member States”. More generally, they point out, “Germany, France and Poland want a revival of European defence, which is ever more necessary in a context marked by the multiplication of crises, the limitation of national resources and the growing expectations with regard to the 'European Union. »

A personal defeat for the High Representative

Faced with a planned and foreseeable veto, the High Representative did nothing either to coax it or to circumvent it. In front of the press, she even hid the real balance of power and preferred to present the British position as a historical fatality against which nothing can be done. " Unanimity is the rule in this area. she explained to justify herself. Which is both a political and legal mistake (the Lisbon Treaty giving possibilities that did not exist in the past).

In this case, Catherine Ashton therefore behaved more like a faithful "doggie" of British interests than like an independent High Representative applying the European Treaties. She also missed a personal opportunity to prove her ability. Damage ! There, she had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate what many personalities reproach her for: her lack of audacity, her lack of appetite for security and defense issues, her British tropism, her talent for preferring her personal career on the other side of the Channel rather than the general interest of an entire continent, etc.

(*) Read also:

• Alone against all, London blocks the idea of ​​a European HQ (update)
• La Germany-France-Poland declaration on the common security and defense policy
• The two options provided by the Ashton report