Zapatero vs van Rompuy

Herman van Rompuy is now, as we know, the first president of the European Council. His first side-kick is the Spanish Zapatero. Many reactions spoke in a surprising tone, best phrased as “I thought we got rid of the rotating presidency scheme”. Well no, we didn’t.

Herman van Rompuy and Lady Ashton are the two new prominent names that ought to take part in foreign politics in the name of the European Union, leaving aside the question how the balance will be made up among these two figures. Van Rompuy’s most important job will probably be heading conferences, in which all foreign representatives of Europe’s states gather together.  No mean feat, sure. His language and culture know-how should definitely make him able for that broad assignment.

He is also one face, a familiar one. Not someone chairing for six months, and then leaving again only to make room for the next national hero, burdened with the agenda of his nation. (Of course you could reasonably doubt whether ‘hero’ has got any reality input these days, as Europe isn’t exactly popular with many.) In this sense Europe did well.

That they chose to keep the rotating presidency oddly never rang a bell with me. It was a known fact; there would be no deleting of that position, it would just be downgraded. It does present a rather weird picture though. To take a step back: We already had all the fuss about Ashton and van Rompuy. Beforehand, practically no one could tell who would be taking care of which tasks. Even the Lisbon Treaty itself seemed to be confused, almost inconsistent, on the issue. A rotating president might be a less powerful president, but it is a president in name and fame all the same. They better not start trampling each other’s toes.

In a way it is ridiculous. Via this new route of bureaucratic measurements they’re turning practicality and pragmatism upside down. If you have one permanent president, it would be reasonable to suspect that he or she took care of the day to day affairs, not irregular meetings concerned with more important matters in which national leaders will want their say anyway. This is not because of leader-abilities, but because involvement, knowing your way around and being familiarized with colleagues, systems and laws makes things run a lot smoother. Van Rompuy is a long term appointee; Zapatero has a six-month term. Could someone please help me out and explain the logic here?

I’m sure that, in theory, all will have been put down in writing, and all should therefore work. Sadly theory, by its very meaning, implies that it is not yet practice. One nice example of this would be Spain’s ambitions. Besides the fact that they need to turn around their whole economy, they would also like to host European Union – United States and Latin America summits. If Mr. Obama lands in Spain later this year, as he is expected to do, who will be greeting him? The European Union can hardly ignore his visit. Can you imagine politicians shaking hands with Joe Biden, while putting Obama on hold? The hotline to the European president is still ringing; no one has so far picked it up.

In all fairness, Spain did send out a reassuring message:

“…You will have the rotating presidency at your disposal … so that you can properly carry out the function of leadership, the political management of the European Council…”  ( Zapatero, December 2009)

What to think of this is something I’ll leave up to you. All that rests for me is to write a side-note. Security, it is supposed to be as fool- and waterproof as the beloved Lisbon treaty. We can again say that is correct. No worries, no terrorists or anything of the likes this time, only the website dedicated to the Spanish presidency got hacked.  A picture of Mr. Bean amusingly shone towards the site’s many visitors for several hours. The joke: For years Zapatero’s face has been compared to that of Rowan Atkinson. Google pictures will make you understand.