rss
Europe’s new president...
A critical look at our two consensus candidates
Usually citizens don’t need detailed introductions to their new president, as it’s typically a figure who has campaigned for their vote for months and sometimes even years beforehand. During this time, their policies, past, and personal lives are splashed across the front pages. By the time the ballots are counted, they are well known public figures - admired or despised (most often both). This being the EU, however, the president is not elected. And most EU citizens likely do need an introduction to the first ‘permanent’ president of the European Council and the new foreign policy chief. So, my fellow EU citizens, meet Herman Van Rompuy, your new President, and Catherine Ashton, his foreign minister.
President Van Rompuy
Though most EU citizens have probably never heard of Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgians are certainly quite familiar with him. That’s because he’s been serving as their Prime Minister for the past year. Previously president of Belgium’s lower house of parliament, he is credited with calming the country after eighteen months of tensions between the linguistic groups. A divided society, tensions between the Wallons and the Flemish are omnipresent in Belgium - apparently they were just higher during this period. He’s been involved in national politics for decades, and has held ministerial positions. A trained economist, Van Rompuy worked in a bank before entering politics. He’s largely credited with dramatically reducing the country’s debt during his stint as budget minister in the 1990s. Perhaps he is the right guy to have around as Europe struggles to emerge from the crisis? Too bad the presidential portfolio doesn’t include budget balancing.
Van Rompuy is a member of the Flemish Christian Democrat party (yes, all the political parties have Flemish and Wallon branches - deeply divided, remember?), which is a big part of the reason he gained favour among the twenty-seven member-state leaders; the majority of them are from centre-right parties as well. His appointment was also seen as a compromise - he’s less controversial than Blair, and he’s not well-known enough to be seen as a threat by the big member states, who feel, probably accurately, that they can push around smaller states. Apparently his experience mediating between the Flemish and Wallons means he’s cut out for mediating between twenty-seven member states and the various factions they form, according to issue. But his political leanings were of vital importance, and accordingly, the new position of foreign policy chief (vice-president of the Council, and Commissioner for External Relations) was to be filled by a centre-left figure.
High Representative Ashton
I present you Baroness Catherine Ashton. ’Baroness’ because the UK has an archaic habit of bestowing lordly titles upon politicians and public figures, in an attempt to drown out the hereditary Lords in the aptly named House of Lords. ’Catherine’ because yes, she is a woman. Either member-state leaders decided two positions = two genders, or they’ve chosen her because she was the best candidate. I certainly hope it was the latter. Gender aside, Ashton’s appointment is also largely seen as a compromise. The British couldn’t get Blair to the presidency, and Miliband snubbed the foreign policy position, but being of the right political fabric (centre-left, as Labour is judged), Ashton ensures that the British fill a big seat, even if it’s not with a big player.
The first ever High Representative for the Union on Foreign and Security Policy.
Source: Flickr, World Economic Forum
' />
- Baronness Ashton
- The first ever High Representative for the Union on Foreign and Security Policy.
Source: Flickr, World Economic Forum
The first ever High Representative for the Union on Foreign and Security Policy.
Ashton was thrust on to the Brussels scene just over a year ago, when Peter Mandelson was summoned back to London to save the Labour Party (which doesn’t appear to have worked, by the way). Handed the trade portfolio, Ashton proved competent as a Commissioner (for someone with no trade experience, that is.). Unfortunately, this is as close as she gotten to foreign policy experience. Previous to arriving in Brussels, Ashton served in various positions as director, chair, treasurer, and even vice-president of a varied and seemingly random collection of organizations, ranging from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Committee to the Hertfordshire Health Authority. She was granted her title in 1999, giving her a life-long chair to call her own in the House of Lords. She went on to lead this House in 2007, until she was sent off to Brussels.
Compatibility
So far there’s not much basis upon which to guess how well these two characters will work together. Hopefully they are at least civil to each other, because sharing a palace for a workspace could get a bit tight if they’re not. Wait a second, it’s a palace…
At least we know they will be able to communicate. Van Rompuy’s mother tongue is Flemish, a language that is of little use outside of his country, and causes offense inside half of his country in the first place. Suffice to say, he’s fluent in English.
Besides both being able to speak English, another thing they have in common is that both Van Rompuy and Ashton have spent approximately one year in their soon-to-be-abandoned current positions. And it’s these positions that give them the most credibility to take up the new appointments. Two years of prime experience between them - a bit worrying to say the least. Sure they were involved in politics before, but in relatively quiet posts. This can be partially blamed on age - aged 62 and 53, respectively, Van Rompuy and Ashton are on the lower end of what we’d classify as seasoned politicians. Their ’youth’ may work to their advantage. Or their inexperience to their disadvantage? Time will tell.
Controversy
Van Rompuy’s most controversial opinion regards Turkey. Speaking in the Belgian parliament five years ago, he announced that ’Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe.’ Furthermore, ’the universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey.’ In this respect, his appointment was dangerous and unwise. Tensions with Turkey are exceptionally high as it is. Turkish politicians could be forgiven for seeing the appointment of Van Rompuy as a strong message, and not a friendly one at that. The EU started Turkey on the accession process years ago, so Van Rompuy would be wise to keep his personal prejudices and geographical convictions to himself, rather than use his two-and-a-half-year term to disrupt a committed legal process that began well before his time.
This flaw in Van Rompuy’s profile shows that even consensual candidates don’t guarantee consensus on everything. Merkel and Sarkozy, two figures who are publicly opposed to Turkish accession, will be delighted with his stance. Let’s be honest, it probably earned him extra points when they considered supporting his candidacy. There are other member states, such as the UK, for example, as well as DG Enlargement, who will be less happy.
It’s hardly shocking that Ashton hasn’t been outspoken on Turkey. As a rookie Commissioner, she’s hardly been outspoken on anything. But as a Brit, it’s fair to guess she’s pro-Turkish accession. Nevertheless, Barroso would be wise to pass the enlargement portfolio in his new Commission to someone whose opinion on Turkey matches the official established position of the Union.
What’s to come
Many fear that Van Rompuy will be a weak president, and argued instead for Blair. I cannot overstate my relief that Blair has been pushed to the side. And Van Rompuy’s first press conference after his appointment hardly portrays a pushover. Let’s hope first impressions prove true.
Ashton isn’t likely to make a huge impact, but it’s too early to deem her irrelevant as well. Her lack of experience speaks against her, but it also means she hasn’t had much of a chance to prove herself yet.
The most significant factor that will determine the success Van Rompuy and Ashton have in uniting and improving the Union will be the behaviour of member states. If national leaders allow European leaders to do their job, these new positions could offer solutions to the dishevelled appearance of the EU abroad, and its invisibility in the eyes of most of its citizens. But if leaders such as Sarkozy and Merkel continue to insist on running the EU show according to their agenda, Van Rompuy and Ashton will be stranded, largely to no fault of their own, but to the fault of the very leaders who pushed forward the creation of their positions.
Logo: Flickr, Luk Van Braekel
Reactions section (1)
Add a comment
Very well written article! I like how you sway the reader back and forth in determining whether or not the new leaders are ideal, and then conclude neutrally with a touch of optimism. Let’s hope that they are given a chance to lead. Keep up the good work!
page perso : http://www.canadainternational.gc.c... React to this comment Add a comment
Also to be seen
Our pages:
On the internet
Authors
Siobhán Gabriella GIBNEY
Editor of „The Month as seen by the Euros“
As an Irish-Italian (Suedtirolean) who has spent most of her life Canada, Siobhán has lived, studied, and traveled in a number of countries. She completed her Masters in Politics and Government in (...)
