Van Rompuy and Barroso: what visibility outside Europe? At the most senior international levels, are the presidents of the EU known at all? Two recent examples beg the question. I am referring to the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, who have been in their posts for a long time. Neither the authorities nor the media in China were able to clearly identify the role played by Mr Van Rompuy, who was on an official visit to the country. This was because they are more used to having a European commissioner or head of state or government from a member state as an interlocutor. His Shanghai speech had no resonance at all elsewhere, according to the observers who were actually there, although it should be said that he focused on human rights, the rule of law, social justice etc. As for Mr Barroso, during his recent visit to the Vatican he was not included on the list of figures that had access to the Pope. It's frustrating but that's how it is: the EU's visibility is not reflected on the two posts that characterise it as a supranational entity.
I believe that there are numerous reasons for this and that they overlap one another. The European Council and the Council of Europe create a permanent state of confusion, which is also damaging because the difference between these two bodies is huge with regard to both the way in which they are made up and the powers they exert. All EU accession candidate countries are part of the Council of Europe, as is Russia, which has no intention at all of joining the Community, as well as Turkey, the eternal candidate country. The confusion created by the two names frequently occurs among the general public but also in the press and (sometimes) in the political world. I believe greater clarity is crucial. On the other hand, I do not think that unifying the roles of the two European presidents (a formula which has the support of top-flight figures) would be effective in this connection.
I don't have any solutions and will limit myself to highlighting the existing problem. If anyone has an answer…
Powers and duties of Ms Ashton. As she had already announced to the European Parliament, the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy opened an EU office in Benghazi (Libya) on Sunday. She was keen to point out that this was done to promote direct contact with the people who are fighting for democracy and a better future. She added that this was a way of indicating the EU's determination not to simply limit itself to providing words of support but also to take action. This initiative, announced in a personal capacity, puts into practice the powers that the Lisbon Treaty allocates to the high representative and that Ms Ashton has duty to exercise.
Jean-Guy Giraud, the president of the European Union Federalists (France), has emphasised that the provisions contained within the Treaty go beyond the impression created by this column. If a group of member states decides to undertake a political/military mission, the high representative is involved in it and “oversees the coordination of the civilian and military aspects of it”. Mr Giraud regrets that these provisions were not respected at the beginning of the operation in Libya and, in his opinion, Ms Ashton could have been accused of “incompetence”.
This column has already expressed the opinion that Catherine Ashton is becoming increasingly efficient and is taking a more concrete approach, having put to one side some of the functions included in the Treaty (vice president of the European Commission) and is turning a deaf ear to certain demands by Parliament (autonomy of initiative in relation to heads of state and government). The Benghazi initiative bears this out.
Proof provided. Pointing out that economic and monetary union is no longer limping because its economic leg is beginning to move (see this column yesterday) did not in anyway seek to be a sort of discovery but rather, reaffirm, with a key example, to what extent it is false to affirm that European construction is on hold. The EU institutions are well aware of what they are doing.
An example? The press release from the Ecofin Council on 17 May indicated that it had discussed the “progress in negotiations with the Parliament on economic governance”. The objective was to “enhance this governance… as part of the EU's response to problems revealed by the shockwaves that have recently affected the sovereign debt markets”. The Council indicates that the texts discussed with the EP involve the monitoring and coordination of member states' budget and economic policies and possibilities for “rectifying excessive economic imbalances in the eurozone”. It says that it would like negotiations with parliamentarians to be concluded in due course, so that regulation is in force by June. The debates are often lively and the disagreements focus on the management instruments and how they operate. The objective in itself of economic governance at European level is therefore the economic dimension of EMU and proof that there have been accomplishments in this field.
(F.R./transl.fl)