A complicated and gradual process. It has to be admitted: the new EU institutional structure is encountering a few difficulties when attempting to assert itself at an international level. Herman Van Rompuy is not finding it easy to obtain recognition, alongside José Manuel Barroso, as the official EU voice at the most senior level, either by the public worldwide or by his foreign interlocutors. This is even more the case for Catherine Ashton, who is often presented (rather inaccurately) as the European Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the US and elsewhere, other European figures representing member states are better known and followed by the media and by the public.
Mr Van Rompuy comes from a small member state, which is obviously not important in itself. Nonetheless, recent controversies have shown that within the EU itself, Community role and the state the person comes from are sometimes confused, so it is therefore hardly surprising that this confusion occurs in other continents. In the Union, day by day, Mr Van Rompuy is managing to assert himself but outside the EU, the process is slow going. Clearly it is not easy for Mr Obama to get used to the fact that at EU/US summits, his interlocutors are both Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso. At the recent EU/ASEM Summit, government leaders from Asian countries considered that it was up to the head of state or government from a European country to chair meetings and they only agreed until after lengthy hesitation that Mr Van Rompuy could chiar the discussions. The situation may evolve once European economic governance (for which the European Council intends to assume the direct lead) is in place.
Ms Ashton is encountering even more difficulties to assert herself, because the EU does not have a common foreign policy. What actually exists, are the positions on different specific subjects, together with the obvious gaps (with regard to recognition of Kosovo, for example). For the time being, the declarations made by Ms Ashton have as much bite as the resolutions frequently approved by the European Parliament when it did not have any real powers. Europe's voice will be better heard once the common positions are increased in number and in importance, particularly through the European diplomatic service (the operational mode for which, however, is still surrounded by uncertainties and differences of opinion).
Recalling the essential. Once again, Jacques Delors brings us back to the crux of the matter. I sometimes wonder about the usefulness of constantly pointing out in this column the significance of European construction and underlining the importance of EU action, despite the delays and shortcomings. In his speech last week at the 20th anniversary of German reunification, Jacques Delors affirmed that, “we, who lived through the events of the past, must bear witness to them. New generations must learn about this period, because they have not experienced it. Today, these younger generations live in a universe of prosperity and peace, whilst witnessing the world of today being shaken by tension and revolt”. At the same time, he looked ahead and affirmed that it was the right moment to make the choices for the future, by urging that the ideas that inspired the first moves, be re-appropriated, “the legacy bequeathed focuses above all on why we want to be together, more than on the treaties and the necessary institutional arrangements”. He added that, “Economic and Monetary Union means that, whether we like it or not, the strongest link between countries is sharing the same currency, rights and also (many in Europe have a tendency to forget this) the responsibilities that come with them”.
A few days ago in an interview, whilst discussing progress on certain concrete points, Mr Delors made particular mention of the energy arena, where it is increasingly necessary for Europeans to act together but where, for the moment, it remains a vacuum. This column will be returning to this issue.
Two lessons in one. The sentencing of Jerôme Kerviel, the former trader at the Société Générale, to 5 years in prison and to pay back €4.9 billion, does not warrant a lot of comment. Whether responsibility for the astronomical losses resulting from financial transactions operated by this person is attributed to Kerviel himself (as the Paris court decided) or to the heads of the bank (as claimed by Kerviel), does not change what really counts: the real scandal is that speculation can lead to losses or gains of such a scale, without there being any advantage to the real economy. If a manoeuvre succeeds, the bankers reap incredible bonuses, if the manoeuvre fails, the bank loses out, as well as its customers. The lesson is twofold: confirmation that it was possible to manipulate such amounts through pure speculation and the demand that political leaders learn the appropriate lessons.
(F.R.)