Premature criticism. Before rubbishing the institutional transformation of the EU resulting from the Lisbon Treaty, it would be wiser to wait for its initial results to become known. Its construction took around 10 years to complete, following events that are quite well known. As soon as the reform entered into force, a number of phrase-mongers had already announced its failure, sometimes quite arrogantly. The permanent presidency had still not even time to organise the European Council under the new formula; the European Commission, with its increased powers, had still not obtained the approval of the European Parliament; the latter had barely begun to exercise its increased powers - but could already read that everything had failed. Certain commentators were bordering on the ridiculous.
Policy needs to be developed. The most absurd case was that of Catherine Ashton, to the extent that this column dedicated an entire commentary to the issue (EUROPE 10060). Before she had even assumed all three functions in her position (vice president of the European Commission, president of the Foreign Affairs Council, high representative) she was already being criticised for not exercising these functions. She still does not possess her main action instrument, the common diplomatic service (which will not be operational for several months) but it has already been decreed that her role is unimportant. Certain criticism would be understandable if she were the European minister for foreign affairs, in charge of defining and managing EU policy in this domain. This is not, however, the case: she has to bring European foreign policy into life and develop it on the basis of analyses made by the future diplomatic service. In the past, her role would not have been one of deciding whether member states should participate in the war against Iraq; today she does not have to decide how they contribute to the war in Afghanistan; tomorrow she will not decide whether and in what way the EU recognises Kosovo's independence, or whether the EU should replace member states at the UN Security Council.
She has been subject to particular criticism for her position on the tragedy in Haiti. This criticism resulted, in my opinion, from a misunderstanding - her unfortunate choice of phrase, “I am neither a doctor nor a fire-fighter” has sometimes been interpreted as if she wanted to say, “I am a diplomat, my role is not one of taking action on the ground”. In my opinion what she meant to say was “my presence would not have been useful, it was better to make way for those who could be”. She will in fact be in Haiti next week because the airport has reopened and she will be able to meet the local authorities to prepare the future, given that the EU is the main donor for reconstruction.
This is not, however, the most important part of the equation. What is essential is understanding that common foreign policy is not an improvisation exercise. Would those calling for it be prepared to accept a majority European decision on the war in Afghanistan? On the dispute over the Sahara? On the recognition of Kosovo? On an exclusive EU entity at the UN Security Council? I am talking about operational positions not about declarations of principle or wish lists.
Let's be serious: European foreign policy will take a long time to develop and the role of Ms Ashton is not to determine this policy itself but to contribute to its gradual construction by employing the instruments currently being prepared, as soon as possible.
Initiatives are forthcoming. The fact that there are political and legal innovations helps to create initiatives. We could refer to the one for withdrawing all nuclear weapons from European territory, or the initiative from the four leading Belgian statesmen (Jean-Luc Dehaene, Guy Verhofstadt, Louis Michel, Willy Claes) calling for nuclear disarmament everywhere in the world. In the economic sphere, progress towards common economic governance of the eurozone (or in more modest terms, coordination of national economic policies) is being supported by the European Parliament and the Commission. It is being discussed at the European Council on the initiative of its permanent president Herman Van Rompuy, and the operational aspects are already being examined by the Eurogroup and the Economy/Finance Council. Robust action by the European Parliament should also be considered (thanks to its new powers in budgetary affairs and agricultural policy) in connection with its support for maintaining and relaunching the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy, on which this column has focused over recent days. Other initiatives will also come surging forward soon, particularly initiatives in favour of strengthened cooperation and other instruments whose efficiency has been greatly expanded by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, such as in the energy arena, for example.
Prefabricated criticism and automatic announcements of failure are short-sighted and sometimes symptoms of ignorance or bad faith. The new instruments will be progressively used and sceptical countries will be able to remain on the sidelines. This column will return to a specific case tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)