An ambiguity. Some of the MEPs felt that Catherine Ashton's responses to the questions put to her at her hearing were weak or insufficient, and some of the press referred explicitly to a semi-failure: the high representative/vice-president of the Commission/president of the Foreign Affairs Council, they said, did not show the authority and clarity of opinions which her triple role requires. I believe that the disappointment is born of an ambiguity: the Baroness is not the European foreign affairs minister (a role which does not exist); it is not her responsibility to lead the common foreign policy of the EU, because that does not exist either, but to work towards creating it, by progressively reconciling the positions of the member states and then defending the common positions defined by means of this process to the best of her abilities in discussions with third countries. The instrument Baroness Ashton will have in order to define these common positions - the joint diplomatic service - does not yet exist, its composition and functions are still being looked into; it is her responsibility to prepare its draft status and her hope that the Council will adopt it in April.
An entire policy to be defined. Against this backdrop, Baroness Ashton's personal opinions, therefore, are not of paramount importance. There were no surprises in her list of priorities: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, the Middle East, Somalia, Yemen, etc. In these areas and in others, her objective is to get Europe singing from the same hymn sheet and making its voice heard. But what is the point of asking her about her position on any given point? For a number of MEPs, this was a way of getting their own opinions across. She could not even have said whether she was in favour of acknowledging the independence of Kosovo, because a number of member states, including the one currently holding the rotating Presidency of the Union, has not acknowledged it. One day, the EU as an entity will have a position on this subject; Catherine Ashton will be able to work to ensure that this day comes, but there is no point in asking her today what she thinks on the matter. She came under fire from a section of the press for not answering the question when asked whether she was in favour of the EU having a single voice within the UN Security Council; she hesitated, then gave the definitive answer... that she did not have an answer. The most that she could have done was to indicate that she felt that it would be a good thing, once the time came. She chose to keep silent. I believe that we should be able to understand why.
Slow and steady progress. Catherine Ashton is not European foreign policy incarnate, but she will be helping to build it. Europe went through other times, when it was hoped that this policy would be brought into being by institutional mechanisms: the time of the Convention, from which sprung the draft European Constitution. Decisions were discussed by majority when the Iraq war broke out, with the member states divided; some of them were in favour of getting involved and others opposed it, and several members of the Convention then started the chorus of lamentations: the dream of a common foreign policy is dead before it is even born! Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the president of the Convention, retorted that the opposite was true: if, at that time, the EU had had in place a majority decision-making procedure, this procedure would have broken down, because whatever the hypothetical result of the vote, it would not have been accepted by the countries which remained in the minority: who could even conceive that the United Kingdom would have agreed to stay out of the conflict if the vote had gone that way, or that France and Germany would have got involved if it had gone the other? That is not how you create a common foreign policy of the EU, but slowly and surely, first of all on specific dossiers, on generally supported initiatives, with a gradual extension to other subjects, prepared and fed into by the common diplomatic service (which, as we have seen, does not yet exist). If Spain does not recognise Kosovo, it is because this country believes that part of a state recognized by the UN cannot proclaim its own independence, whether it is called the Basque country or Catalonia, but that the rules and limits of autonomy must be decided collectively. I invite you to re-read, or to read, the pages devoted to the issue of common foreign policy in the Mémoires of Jacques Delors.
Mr Van Rompuy's view of things. Catherine Ashton's situation is, in my opinion, fairly similar to the opinions which Herman Van Rompuy explicitly stated of his role and duties at the head of the European Council: his personal opinions are of no importance, he will seek to reach common positions and to translate them into action (see this section in bulletin 10048). It is in precisely in this conciliation work that the person holding the positions of the permanent president (of the European Council just as of the Foreign Affairs Council) will bring to bear their qualities and beliefs.
(F.R./transl.fl)