It was agreed that the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission would be received in Ankara by President Erdoğan. The European Union was reaching out to develop a positive agenda (see EUROPE 12692/1). To prepare for the event, the Turkish protocol officials did not need to be imaginative; they just had to reproduce what had been done in 2015 when their President met Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, who were treated as equals. Has the protocol changed since then? There is no EU text indicating that it has.
So why make it simple when you can make it complicated? The video shows that the event had been organised. For a dictator, symbolism is always much more important than for a democratic leader. By diminishing the woman’s position, the government was sending a signal to (male) religious leaders, in line with the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention. Moreover, it created tension between his two interlocutors: divide et impera. Finally, it ridiculed, if not the European Union, at least one of its major institutions. It has been said that a member of the EU Council’s protocol service travelled to Ankara to supervise the preparations. He may have thought he was doing his boss a great favour by validating the scenario, but he has violated the principle of “sincere cooperation” between the EU institutions (Article 13 para. 2 TEU).
The video shows that two prestigious chairs (if not thrones) were set up; Michel and Erdogan can be seen walking towards them and settling in without hesitation. The President of the Commission, standing, remains speechless. At no time does Michel ask for a chair for her or offer her his own. She is forced to sit on a couch, away from the other two, which does not allow her to participate in the conversation properly. The Turkish Foreign Minister sits symmetrically on the opposite couch. This second-tier position is well known to diplomats and international civil servants: it is about witnessing, taking notes, and intervening only when objectively necessary.
The video is causing a buzz on the web. The affront to Ursula von der Leyen is an affront to all women and to the principle of gender equality: this is the first lesson from the reactions. One can also deduce that Charles Michel would not be the type to give up his seat to a woman on the metro. “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11): this process is well underway in public opinion (including many diplomats).
A protocol argument has been put forward. During the Delors years, the President of the Commission had the rank of Head of State, that was obvious; this did not belittle the President-in-Office of the EU Council, who changed every six months. The Commission is a strong institution, with origins dating back to the first founding treaty. The European Council has only had the status of an institution since the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) and the creation of a “stable” Presidency (a two and a half year term, renewable once) may have generated personal rivalries. According to the Treaty, “the President of the European Council shall, at their level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” (Article 15 para. 6d TEU). However, the High Representative is also Vice-President of the European Commission, where he coordinates the Union’s external action (including the customs union, which is of interest to Ankara); by sending the President herself instead, the institution was demonstrating the importance it attached to Turkey. In short, the Union’s external action is shared between the Commission and the European Council, and this sharing must be reflected in the protocol.
And if one were to invoke the “hierarchy” between the institutions that appears in Article 13 of the TEU to justify a public humiliation, let us recall that the first of these is the European Parliament, the chamber of the people. If one is aiming for the highest level of representation, that is where it is. It should also be remembered that the President of the Commission was elected by Parliament, whereas the President of the European Council derives his legitimacy from his peers, and in the event of a contretemps or serious misconduct, the latter may terminate his mandate by a qualified majority vote.
Politically, the Ankara meeting did not contribute anything to the EU. After the failure in Moscow, this is starting to feel like a lot in a few weeks. There are lessons to be learned for the neighbourhood policy. Firstly, you do not prepare a negotiation with a dictator in the same way as with a democratic leader. Secondly, the Commission’s debasement, especially if it is public, does not benefit anyone in the Union, while making its competitors and adversaries happy. Finally, the European Parliament must also exercise its political control over sincere coordination between the European Council and the Commission: its next plenary session would be a good opportunity for this.
High-level ego squabbles fly low; they are reminiscent of kindergarten squabbles when the theatre of the world reveals multi-faceted brutality on a massive scale.
Original version in French by Renaud Denuit