"We have a democratic calling"

Catherine Ashton, the High Representative, has just spoken to the European Parliament in Brussels on Tunisia and Egypt.

On Tunisia, Ashton was able to describe what action is being taken. She will submit a proposal to the Foreign Affairs Council on restrictive measures to freeze the assets of Tunisian figures suspected of embezzling public Tunisian funds. A EU mission to support the legal framework of elections in Tunisia has been sent, and Ashton will visit Tunisia in two weeks. Ashton also pointed out to parliamentarians that the newly appointed Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Brussels as his first official visit, and spoke with her.

Regarding Egypt, Ashton had some praise for the demonstrations, saying that "the great strength of this movement is that it is happening across Egypt", and called for peaceful protesters who had been arrested to be released, and the restrictions on online media to be ended. Recently violence has broken out, with at least 500 people injured in the violence according to Euronews (which has taken to showing a continuous stream of fighting on Egyptian streets), and it seems that the clashes are caused by the police and pro-Mubarak demonstrators trying to dislodge the anti-government protestors, with the army standing aside, as if waiting to see which side will be more determined. Ashton called for calm on all sides, and described the EU as willing to help with reform and change in the region, saying, "we are a Union of democracies, we have a democratic calling".

Guy Verhofstadt described the only proper European response to the Egyptian crisis to be the Turkish one, which called for Mubarak to listen to the demands of the people, and demanded that Ashton state that the EU is fully behind the Egyptian people and their demands. I agree that that is the correct, principled, stance that we can take, though I understand that Ashton - indeed, any High Representative - isn't in the position to make strong statements off her own bat. I also have some sympathy for the High Representative: these situations are hard to react to, particularly when you have to co-ordinate 27 different foreign policies. However, there is clearly a popular movement in Egypt, and we should be consistent in our calls for democracy and human rights. Ashton's weakness here is probably her inexperience - I do not know what her personal reaction to the situation is, and I feel that she probably recognises what the circumstances in Egypt mean, but any High Representative has to have a clear vision and strategy, backed up with facts and strong arguments when faced with such a rapidly changing situation. This inexperience probably means that any response she wants to formulate is done relatively slowly, and she is unable to deal with national policy variations well enough to co-ordinate quickly.

There was a lot of talk by MEPs about how the EU should take a stand and acted together, which I agree with, but we need to recognise that we can only have a limited impact on events within other countries undergoing popular protests at the best of times. The Iraq invasion has discredited the idea of intervening, and any action we take has to be principled, but always allowing for the change to be a domestic affair. If we say we shouldn't intervene in other countries to change their regimes, then we have to accept that that means that we have to deal with other countries as we find them, and that international politics are complicated by more competition from powers that aren't that interested in democracy (though obviously our own record on this internationally isn't the cleanest).

Firm, principled political stances, and being able to offer assistance to ensure peaceful and stable reform (it is hard to foster democracy in a revolutionary atmosphere, given that compromise and trust is at the heart of the democratic system), are probably the limit of what we could do, but they are important nonetheless in encouraging a peaceful transfer of power. In the future it may be wise to have a plan in the European External Action Service that mandates the high Representative to deal with similar principled and supportive way, with the speed and coherence that are required.

Europe in 2010

The 14th December symbolised Europe in 2010 for me. Berlusconi, despite all the scandals, won two confidence votes (in the lower house by just 3 votes!), and outside the protesters took to rioting. A few days later there would be a European Council summit where it was decided to dig in: there will be a Treaty amendment to make the Eurozone's bail-out facility permanent, but no increase in the facility's funds, nor any moves towards closer fiscal union through Eurobonds. Outside rages anger and uncertainty about the future, but inside there is little vision, and fear for the alternatives.

European solidarity now has a figure: €750 billion, and a few interest rate percentage points. At the heart of the matter lie questions of blame and responsibility as well as solidarity. Why should the German taxpayer - or Dutch, or Finnish - pay for the poor economic management of other Eurozone states? Or, from the other point of view, why should Greek and Irish taxpayers support a harsh austerity programme that bails out German, British and other private banks; why should these taxpayers pick up the tab for the reckless private sectors in other countries? Both are understandable viewpoints and have good arguments, but they reveal the extent of the "European integration" of the private sphere, and the need for a strong, coherent Eurozone response. I agree that countries like Ireland have mismanaged their economies and a great deal of the responsibility lies with them. But does it make sense to aim to penalise these countries' economies and demand penance, while at the same time advocating their rescue by the very same measures to ensure that their economies revive and cease to threaten the stability of the European economy?

The Eurozone needs a vision for how it will be run to benefit the whole, yet we hardly hear the arguments on Eurozone governance, and we don't debate the different viewpoints across borders. How can we be in a position - how can our leaders even be in the position - to make the rules for living together in the Eurozone when we are intent on having conversations with ourselves in fragmented groups, and trying to extract short-term advantage at each summit instead of trying to build a consensus on how to proceed together?

Though the economic crisis dominated 2010, there was much more to the year than that.

It was the first year of the Lisbon Treaty, which changed EU politics - you might even say it was the year the European Parliament. Whether it was the EU-US SWIFT Agreement on terrorist financing being shot down for a lack of safeguards, with US Vice President Biden imploring Parliament to accept it before a modified form was adopted, or the battle over the budget, the Parliament has been exerting its influence constantly. Victories weren't total, and I didn't always agree with the legislation passed, but the Parliament managed to make its mark on 2010. For me the greatest Parliamentary victory was over the formation of the European External Action Service, were it got a lot of its proposals accepted and heavily shaped the new institution despite only having the right of consultation under article 27(3) TEU - if anything symbolises the Parliament's new-found power, it should be this.

Politics of government and opposition strengthened in the Parliament this year, with the EPP generally supporting the Commission and Council with the help of the Liberals (where the right are in the majority), and a motley alliance of the PES, Greens and Liberals managing to upset the EPP's plurality on occasion. Though voting alliances remain fluid, the increasing coherence and importance of European parties with clearer policy platforms begs the question: why aren't we doing more to hold them to account and to use them to make a difference?

Barroso's second Commission was formally installed early in the year, and he tried to inject some vision into his second term in his hyped "State of the Union" speech. Generally the Commission was the least visible of the institutional triangle, though it did have a moment of glory when it temporarily grew a backbone to speak out over the Roma crisis in France.

Rights were very much an issue - civil liberties in SWIFT, citizenship and human rights for the Roma, human rights and elections in Belarus, and freedom of speech and the media in Hungary. If this is any indication, we will need to remain vigilant at home and across Europe for the next year and beyond.

Like Jon Worth, I'm not so optimistic for the future: there are too many narrow interests pulling in too many different directions. In September I heard a speech on the development of the EU. Europe, it was proclaimed, advanced through crises and managed to muddle through; we should not be worried or optimistic. I can't see that way of doing business working in the future. We need to make greater use of what is there to make the EU more inclusive and representative so that clearer arguments and vision can form and shape the Europe we live in. But it won't happen just through institutional reform and more information campaigns. It's a long road, but promoting debate between people and not just governments is essential if the EU is to become more democratic and joined-up. But this would require people to actively participate, rather than just being passive subjects.

The Role of the High Representative and the EU's CFSP

Dan Smith has written a very interesting and well thought-out post on the state of the External Action Service (EAS) and its potential as well as what aims it should have. The Institute of International and European Affairs had a guest lecture on the topic back at the start of March 2010 on the role of the HR and the President of the European Council. I've embedded the video below.

And the Special Representative for Bosnia is...

Ashton may reshuffle the deck of EU Special Representatives now that the Commission delegations are being upgraded to embassies around the world. This is entirely rational and a good move, even if it does mean, as ever, another round of backstage member state maneovering on who gets what post. In the end, it won't make sense to have SRs when the EEAS (European External Action Service) is in place and can do the job just as well. Having SRs for regions and attached to international and supranational organisations (African Union, Balkans, etc) is a good idea, since it would permit an overall approach to regions and promote good contacts and deep relationships between the EU and other regional organisations.

But one point of caution. Paddy Ashdown is being talked about as a possible SR for the Balkans. There is some opposition to his possible appointment on the basis that there shouldn't be too many UK nationals at the top in the EEAS, but there's no denying that he has experience in the region, as he has served as the High Representative for the international community in Bosnia - a very powerful and sensitive role that is key to the state building and reconciliation in the country. But this post is still just as important to the peace process in Bosnia today, and stripping Inzko (the current HR/EUSR) of his EUSR status wouldn't be a good signal to the country when it faces elections this year.

Bosnia still has a long way to go on the path to becoming a country at peace with itself, and it will not help for the EU to take, or appear to take, a more "hands off" approach. This is Europe's back yard, and we have a duty to be fully engaged in the process. I don't think that a SR for the whole Western Balkans would be enough: the HR in BiH needs to be a link between Bosnia, the international community and the EU to work as effectively as possible, and Bosnia needs to have a solid and stable link to the rest of Europe.

Obama doesn't love us anymore...

Obama won't be attending the upcoming EU-US summit in Madrid. Do you feel abandoned? Alone? Unloved?

Despite the talk this will generate, there's not really that much to say. Obama is a smart man, and if there's a point to attending, he will attend. We might wring our hands over the loss in status and perceived snubs, but at the end of the day if the EU doesn't prove itself to be a valid global actor, then it won't attract a global guest list to its summits. That the summit is in Madrid doesn't really matter (as Julien Frisch highlights), but it does indicate why Obama won't bother coming: the central institutions are loosing out to the member states.

The Economist has a very good article on the need for Ashton to assert herself against a Spanish rotating presidency meddling in EU foreign policy. If Ashton can't even slap down member states for floating policy ideas as policy fact, then what does that say for the credibility of the Lisbon institutions? Would you dial a number if the person at the end of the line is too afraid to speak?

In short, there's no point wringing our hands over this latest loss in prestige. We need to get to grips with where we want to go with our foreign policy (and on who will do what both in foreign policy and domestically), and how we're going to get there. Then others will be willing to talk to us about it.

Update on the EU's "Visibility"

The Times has now started bashing Ashton for her failure to fly the European flag in devastated Port-au-Prince. It's strange to see a newspaper such as the Times - one generally sceptical towards all things European and which seems to doubt the usefulness of European initiatives - effectively supporting a vanity trip for the EU. While it is good to fly the flag, it's vastly more important to get things done, which in Ashton's case means organising good co-ordination.

Despite the attacks on Ashton's style, I have to say that I haven't heard/read a similar attack on her co-ordination efforts. There's probably more that can be done in this area, but if Ashton's opposition can't back up their criticism with evidence - or even claims - of effective policy failure, then it's just hot air.

Watching Ashton briefing the EP on Haiti, I was struck by how the government-opposition roles were reversed. The EPP is normally in government mode (it is, after all, the largest party, and controls the Commission - perhaps even forcing Barroso to lending more public backing to Jeleva then he wanted to). Yet here the S&D group was playing the role of the governing party: Michael Cashman gave a particularly vocal defence of Ashton while strongly attacking other parties (translation: EPP) for "political point scoring".

Which raises the question: was lobbying for such a high profile post politically wise?

The EPP is very much in power at the moment; it's the strongest in the EP and controls the Council and Commission. But while the S&D group has largely started to play a more natural (if sometimes grandstanding) opposition role, Ashton's prominence makes it harder to claim that they have nothing to do with the current Commission. On one hand, the S&D are making the best of an awkward hand - the state-centredness of the Commission means that unless the centre-left aren't in power in any member state, they will have at least one Commissioner. Nevertheless the S&D have strongly looked for some governmental power, and it's not completely free to play the constructive oppositional politics it needs to if it wants to have any hope of making an impact.

What MEPs want.

Ashton may not have gone to Haiti, but the High Representative has met with Secretary of State Clinton (Link. Via David Garrahy).

This is foreign policy as the MEPs want to see it: glamorous, high profile, with the US praising the EU and talking up its role in the world. And Clinton did praise - the Lisbon Treaty was described as a historic event in world history. A wide range of topics was also discussed, such as Afghanistan and Iran, though the EU has little say in these areas. Nevertheless, no doubt the sight of Ashton and Clinton talking tough on Iran was a dream come true for MEPs, and it might leave them satisfied with theatrics abroad for the time being.

The question remaining from this and Ashton's meeting is what role will Ashton play with regard to Iran? Will she try to be proactive in shaping a common policy, or is Iran just an easy target for tough speeches these days?

Haiti: does it matter that Ashton isn't "on the ground"?

Haiti, the EUobserver reported, is showing how Ashton will conduct foreign policy:

" Ms Ashton's office already leapt into action on Wednesday (13 January) as news emerged of the scale of what looks like the worst natural disaster since the Asian tsunami in 2004.

Ms Ashton chaired a meeting in Brussels of European Commission officials from the foreign relations, development and environment departments as well as experts from the EU Council and the Situation Centre, the EU member states' intelligence-gathering hub.

The meeting agreed to trigger €3 million in emergency aid, signed off by development commissioner Karel de Gucht, and to look into further financial assistance, such as advance payments from the commission's €28 million annual development budget for Haiti.

It also decided to send officials from the commission's environment department to the earthquake zone to assess damage and to task an environment department unit to co-ordinate pledges from Belgium, Sweden, France, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Norway, Iceland and Luxembourg to send personnel and equipment."

But what got the most attention was Ashton's "failure" to visit Haiti personally. Her reason? That it was already hard enough for aid to get through without her travelling to the disaster zone. Did this satisfy MEPs? Of course not:

"The head of the centre-right group in the European Parliament, Joseph Daul, said that the fact that Mrs Ashton was not present while her US counterpart Hillary Clinton travelled to the Caribbean island over the weekend was "regrettable." Just about everybody was in Haiti at the moment when these people are suffering, and Europe was not present," he said. "If it would have been in our hands, we would have sent someone."

To date, MEPs on the right have held their fire on Ms Ashton, who has the extra backing of the 27 EU countries, which unanimously appointed her to be the union's high representative for foreign affairs. The member states' deal was a careful compromise between left and right which saw the post of President of the European Council, the EU's other main external actor, given to a centre-right politician.

His attack on Mrs Ashton was later backed up by the leader of the Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

"I am very sceptical about Lady Ashton," said the French politician. "Her performance vis-a-vis the situation in Haiti has been insufficient and I think that what Mr Daul said in his communication today was not wrong."

Mrs Ashton's job means that she is supposed to be the public face of the EU in the case of an international crisis and to oversee the bloc's response. On Monday, the EU pledged over €400 million in aid to Haiti."

It's hard to see any practical difference that an Ashton-visit would have made. There is a pan-EP obsession with political symbols, to the extent that they seem to value symbolic tours of disaster zones rather than focus on any practical benefits in aid co-ordination. The inferiority complex with the US, and comparisons with Clinton have to stop: Ashton works in a different institutional environment, and it makes far more sense at this stage to focus on small, practical policy steps that provide actual benefits than wasting energy on political symbolism. Last week MEPs wanted to see a foreign minister, not an ambassador for 27 foreign ministers - well, what separates the two is that the former tries to coax the levers of power into action, while the other just represents on the spot.

MEPs should focus on policy, not PR.

Ashton: foreign policy will be conducted "as appropriate".

Baroness Ashton's hearing was probably the most watched one, even though it was widely predicted that she would pass through easily, due to the cross-party and cross-member state deal on her candidature. But the lure of hearing what the views of someone entering the foreign policy arena for the first time, and of hoping to see some indications of how she would attempt to shape EU foreign policy drew an audience.

So how did she do?

To some people, she was a disappointment - there was no strong commitments or statements on policy in any single area. At most, the western Balkans - and Bosnia and Herzgovina in particular - where indicated as a priority, while every other foreign policy issue was, the MEPs were assured, of great importance and would be considered carefully. On one hand, it was a frustrating hearing - these are easy and natural things to say, and they hardly tell us anything that we couldn't already tell from a glance at the EU's interests in its own region. But then again, it's hard to know what we should expect from a foreign policy hearing. An incoming foreign minister (or high representative) doesn't want to annoy possible partners and allies, and you don't want to go around talking about strategies openly. The HR position also has the problem that a unanimous coalition has to be built up at home (or at least a position that nobody wants to veto) before the HR can set about implementing a policy.

Still, the liberal use of the phrase "as appropriate" in her answers means that already vague replies were rendered almost meaningless. The most interesting single statement was a strong-sounding statement against Iran building nuclear weapons, and in favour of non-proliferation regimes.

MEPs didn't exactly preform well: they may have been going easy on her to protect the deal over her candidature, but more searching and specific questions could have been asked to get a better feel of her personal attitudes, which would no doubt shape her tenure. MEPs had a strange obsession with getting the right to hold hearing and vet the appointment of senior EU ambassadors - which Ashton repeatedly, and sensibly, refused.

Towards the end the Green MEP Ulrike Lunacek made a good point - we want to know what Ashton is like, we don’t want an ambassador for 27 foreign ministers. While it's impossible to leave the 27 foreign ministers out of any equation, I don't think we got any deeper into what kind of HR Ashton will be, than the image of the "quiet diplomat" that she has been promoting over the last few weeks.

Indeed, the most important foreign policy statement we may have heard from the hearings could have come from the hearing of the Energy Commissioner-designate, Oettinger. Apparently, he wants the EU to deal with energy deals - ending bilateral treaties between member states and third parties. If the EU were to sign energy treaties collectively, then the EU's market size would come to bear, and it would upset Russia's "divide and rule" strategy when it comes to gas.