The results of the European Council are contained in the following pages, which also provide a customary summary of the main positions taken by the participants. The “Conclusions” feature in the Annex. This section will look at these results next week, including the dossier on climate change. For the moment, I would like to look at the lack of a result on: the designation of senior figures due to exercise two new senior positions provided under the Lisbon Treaty. The Heads of State and Governments have assessed and compared the respective orientations and in this connection have made their announcements and remarks and taken positions. It is understandable that the Swedish presidency deemed it necessary to wait for the treaty ratifications to be completed and have put off the decisions in this regard for a further two or three weeks. The dossier is complex because it involves a balance between nationalities, political orientations and even the gender of those designated. A few general considerations are perhaps possible.
Responsibility for delay and its possible risks. Postponing the decisions is due, it is said, to the waiting required for ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the president of the Czech Republic. Vaclav Klaus is play acting: he knows he will have to sign and recognised this himself but is delighted to benefit from a legal sophism to delay this act. The presidency of the summit must logically demonstrate his respect for each countries national procedures and wait we must. The risk is that the Czech people will later suffer the repercussions of the current prevarication because when their country has to support its national positions in Brussels, the atmosphere will not be in its favour. There is no question of reprisals but of a malaise and lack of trust. Vaclav Klaus would be more honest and more useful to his country if he explicitly called for his country to leave the EU, let the citizens decide. The way in which he is currently obstructing the clear and majority will of his parliament is a denial of democracy.
The functions of a president. On the question of nominations, it is, for the time being, mainly about the future stable presidency of the European Council, the most prestigious function and whose title has often mistakenly been described as the future president of Europe. The debate on the candidacies proves that the preliminary questions involving the role of this president have still not been clarified. It is not a question of simply choosing a Chairperson who will set out the agenda and lead the debates or a figure that represents Europe and expresses himself on the latter's behalf; it is now admitted that this will be a senior figure with a significant role.
Some see this role as essentially one of presenting, explaining and defending Europe's positions to the outside world. This is the thesis defended by supporters of Tony Blair and who considered to have the ear of the most powerful people in the world. A contrasting view affirms that this presidential role would be to ensure that current European positions are made in an effort to help European construction progress. The EU's external relations and the presentation of its position in the world (a task specific to the High Representative, whose original title was European Minister for Foreign Affairs) will just be one element in the president's action, together with consolidating internal cohesion, Economic and Monetary Union and common policies. This is the orientation outlined by Jean-Claude Junker (see this section in EUROPE 10008) and shared by José Luis Zapatero on behalf of the Socialists (see EUROPE yesterday).
The battle of names. Candidacies presented too far in advance allow for their adversaries to organise and express their opposition and this occurred, as expected, with Tony Blair. The fact that his opponents are not only in other member states but also in his country, radically weaken his chances. We have to ask whether it would not be more reasonable for his country to shift its goal to that of the High Representative, especially because the Party of European Socialists appears intent on this ambition. Let's not forget that the Liberals are also confirming their demands and have Guy Verhofstadt as a figure and who has received so much support.
I don't intend to examine the candidacies. Our previous publication did so and the following pages will look at the most recent developments, which our readers can see for themselves. In the meantime, the European Council's confirmation of clear orientations on the European Diplomatic Service already represents in itself progress in the new structure the EU is building.
(F.R./trans/rh)