Small talk

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.

History has been written: Europe has its president in the name and form of Herman van Rompuy. Another prominent position, or at least we think it will be, has been handed out to Cathy Ashton. She has been put forward by Gordon Brown as a candidate for the post of high representative, or as the position is better known: Europe’s foreign minister (first EU foreign policy chief).

Europe’s multi-institutional build-up, chaired by different figures, will demand some more patience for us to see how and if powers will shift. Some careful and intermediate conclusions can be drawn out though, with a slight risk that I will have to eat some of my words.

As a bold start: Europe is unlikely to head or aim for world politics. This has nothing to do with capabilities, only with the fact that van Rompuy works a lot more behind the scenes than charismatic persons such as Blair do. Van Rompuy has only been prime minster of Belgium for about a year and has not as much experience as several other candidates have, although he seems up to the job. For one thing, he led Belgium out of chaos, which fought rough political battles in stormy waters the last years. You would almost think that anyone capable of leading Belgium will have no trouble at all with leading Europe. His genes too seem to favor him too, for his family has a habit of being involved in politics (this is a figure of speech biologists, do not worry I am not trying to abuse your carefully crafted knowledge).  But what does his denomination say about Europe’s prospects?

Since the president chairs meetings of the European Council I don’t think it is likely he will be seen on global issues in any way comparable to Obama or Clinton. This would have been possible with Blair, but Rompuy is better at overcoming difficulties and stimulating compromises than he is at taking stage and inspiring people thereby. This isn’t necessarily bad, especially not with his intellectual background and image. He is well respected, and with his language know-how the job to get EU-country leaders closer together will be much easier, even if he won’t be a strategic pawn in global politics.  We should even be glad, since he is much more capable than most of his competitors by being much more inclined to think in pragmatic, philosophical (read: critical) terms. This goes especially in comparison to Dutch candidate Balkenende (it should be noted that he denied availability) and Luxembourg’s Juncker. The latter’s ties with the UK will hardly bring the isles  any closer, and he is in any case better suited for financially orientated tasks.

The second new job went to Cathy Ashton, who has worked as a European trade commissioner for a year. I am more puzzled why she got the job. Her background reveals little experience that makes her suitable for an assignment people held to rival the president’s in power. She never served as minister in England, and neither has she participated in any public elections. David Millband was rumored to get the job at first, but he supposedly stayed behind in order to rescue his Labor party from a huge defeat in next year’s elections (good luck there).

Luckily we have a few other reasons before bowing our heads in despair because Europe randomly chose someone: Ashton is a woman. That seems uninformative, but please don’t say that aloud to feminists. The longer people discussed potential people to fill in these newly created spots, the louder the voice became that called for a woman to take on the job. Nothing wrong with that of course, on the contrary, even though I am strongly opposed against ‘women-quotas’ in businesses and other such measures. But many wanted to see a woman holding an important post in Europe. Well, it seems they got their way. The fact that she has worked under Barrosso, the current president of the European Commission, will probably have done her some favors as well, since he is at least rumored to have given her his support.

It’s a funny thing that people kept their focus on an English candidate. There are several ‘good’ reasons for this. The first is the U.K’s relationship with the European Union. They’re not in the middle of the heat; they want to keep as much power on their islands as they can. The one thing that they intensely keep track of however is foreign policy. When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Balkans and Israel: England leads.  So it was natural perhaps, than an Englishmen, or woman in this case, got the job. Strategic too, because Europe got bigger, and with the NATO and the UN it has since long kept an eye on security and armies.  But more than enough ambitions and rumors are around to tell us that a more centralized European army will one day be realized, or at least strived for. And both the French and the Germans will know their chances are slim to none to materialize this without UK support.

Time, as always, will tell what is in store for us. With less prominent figures leading Europe’s way, we can draw several intermediate conclusions. The first is that a power struggle between the foreign minister, the council president and the commission president is less likely than before, because of egos with less need of inflating. With van Rompuy as our newly elected president, we have someone who has a reasonably clean-sheet, which in political terms means few opponents. In combination with Ashton, who is less widely known but nevertheless liked, we can have good hopes for a future of cooperation rather than proliferation of individuals. A good relationship with foreign representatives might do us some good too, and Ashton’s former job as trade commissioner might be a nice stepping-stone.

The new ‘president’ of the European Union is yet to be elected, but names of candidates that are interested in the post are all over the place. I should be glad Barroso doesn’t read this. If he sees I am talking about a president, then I am sure his rage will be terrible. The new post is of course, the president of the European Council. At this moment it is like a ‘merry-go-round’, a new face every six months. Too much work, too less certainty and too much wobbling. The future will bring us one president that will sit for two and a half years, with chances to stay put for another two and a half.

But as always in politics we seem to wake up only to fall into the next nightmare again. Europe has my support; the ideals behind the Lisbon treaty have my support.  But so has reason, and reason makes Lisbon shaky. We will take a quick look at several candidates that are being named for the newly created post of president of the European Council. After that however, we will turn to the downside of the matter. Because Europe needs its people, Europe will need a face. It doesn’t have one at this moment, will it get one?

I will focus on three candidates first, one of which I need barely count because we can deal with him quickly. This is because his name is Balkenende. I would like to state, quite clearly, that it would be a grave mistake to assign this man any position that is related to any form of political power. A liking of Israel that is too influential in his decision making, no backbone when it came to taking a stance on the Iraq war (“we will not support it military, but we do support it politically”…) and leader of a Dutch parliament that will only make bureaucracy and subsidies worse than they already are. Add to that list an uncharismatic character and you will have everything Europe shouldn’t want. End.

Second is Tony Blair. Unlike Balkenende he is quite a charismatic person. Normally, I do not like to associate politics with American ways of proliferation, but in this case we might need just that. Assigning the position to a dull, bureaucratic and uncharismatic politician would be almost as much as another blow to the EU, or another argument in favor of the EU-critics. If there is one thing the EU needs, it’d be a face that people can recognize and associate with policies. Blair, whatever his faults may be, has influence and connections worldwide. It’s a strange thing that he seems to be respected still, especially when the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq hover so clearly before our eyes. Obviously, a case could be made that assigning him the position wouldn’t do well in the Middle East, which shouldn’t be taken lightly.

We might also mention Juncker, the candidate from Luxembourg. Not an option to be rejected out of hand. He is experienced, even if only by governing a small country (but we might recall his spot on words: “I am not a dwarf!) His ties with England are not the best imaginable, so those who would like to see England more involved will probably point to the effects this might have in luring England closer. But to be fair, it seems in any case unlikely that the mood of the English people will change towards Brussels, because the current polls decidedly report that the Tories are heading for a landslide victory, at least relative to the situation they’re now in. And for some reason I can’t see the Tories marching into our continent with blue, yellow starred flags in their hands.  And even though it might be good for overseas European popularity (if you assume that Blair will have a positive effect on ‘his’ people, which is all but sure), the distance England takes from European affairs can hardly be counted as a legitimate argument against Juncker’s chances.

By taking these two politicians you have two very different profiles, which will shove some important matters into the limelight. One we already mentioned, that is the question whether we should stress someone that can lure England closer to Europe. In the current situation I consider it to be too far removed from reality in order to take it into account however, so it doesn’t bear any strength. Two other questions remain, because of the enormous lack of legitimatization of European politics: Do we want a face that has always been pro-Europe, and do we want someone that stirs up emotion and interest, by virtue of being a recognizable face?

I for one would like to have a person on the spot that is of interest to the public. The Lisbon Treaty has always had my support, even though it’s not as good as it should be. But its one great fault is giving the European Parliament more power, while it doesn’t hook up with the people its governing for. The institution is fine, but a parliament should connect to its people. Changing the system is not going to work, that much is clear. Too much money, bureaucracy and a general unwillingness will prevent this. But the problem needs solving. That’ll be a difficult de-tour, summed up in making European politics more interesting. That won’t work if neither journalists nor the people fancy the policy makers and its leader. One pro for Mr. Blair. But this has a negative side as well. A potential clash of power in the EU is at hand, and please do not let it get out of hand. It’ll be interesting to see how the president will cooperate with the ‘Foreign Minister’, alas the Commission vice-President. Those two better not block each other’s roads, perspectives and possibilities. When you assign the spot to Mr. Blair, you’ll have a person with ambitions, who will not be shoved into a side role quickly. In better times, with more hope and less economic and political despair, you’d say ‘they’ll just have to wing it’, but confidence is not altogether on unknown heights. A pro-Europe and respected politician, with a clean-sheet when it comes to making war, might have a head-start: One point to Luxembourg.

But taken either of those, it still gets all the more complicated and frustrating. Who is going to be Europe’s next face? Even if a president of the European Council is elected, I won’t be able to give you an honest answer. Because there will be, as there are now, several powers that be. One will be the foreign minister, with an extra ‘vice-president of the commission’ label attached to him/her, the second will be the president of the European Commission, and the third will be what we have come to know as the actual president, who is the president of the council. The two presidents have overlapping tasks, especially now that the council will be granted more status and power because of Lisbon Treaty ratification. But even if these two get along well, which is not at all sure since the people who are appointed might come from different political sides, there is another potential power struggle with the foreign minister.

At this moment all we can do is hope for a candidate that is ambitious enough so as to become both president of the council and the commission. That spares us one possibility to bicker. The best possible solution would be a combination of commission and council tasks, in legal terms, so as to give Europe one presidential face. Please Brussels, prevent this continent from tripping over its own feet again, which have become so hard to see thanks to its enormous bureaucratic belly.

In Europe the boundaries are open, the population is relatively wealthy and the infrastructure is more than reasonable. Still, people mock and complain whenever the European Union is mentioned, especially in relation to national autonomy. People are scared of this big, angry and impersonal political manifestation that many regard as a major threat to the acquired national, partly western, tradition and culture.
National governments have spent millions of euros on promotion campaigns, but people just don’t seem to love Europe as much as they do. With the upcoming ratification of the Lisbon treaty in sight, it is more than a legitimate question to ask what is holding us back and why. Ought Europe to be stopped, dead in its tracks? People do seem to have little insight in European policy, let alone its future. And that for one thing, is not going to do it any favors.

 Besides the obscure processes that seem to hold the (partly) united continent in its grip, there is another threat, which is rather crudely known as ‘money’.  That which ought to be done ought to be done. But it is always a good thing if it is actually known what that exactly is. And despite the enormous amounts of money involved people rarely get any further than suggesting its business lies in some meager ‘agricultural subsidies’, ‘open boundaries’ and ‘shared monetary policies’. That is far from saying it isn’t important, which it is, especially now: The Irish have cast their votes and we will soon be subjected to the law that we no longer call the ‘constitution’, but the Lisbon Treaty. And that is characteristic. People have no reason to fear for the future of their culture, even the treaty explicitly mentions both the diversity of these as well as their aesthetical value, but Europe is being shoved down our throats, and that is an uncomfortable truth for many.
Now politicians often pretend to be interested in the people they are said to represent, while striving towards their own agenda in the meantime. No surprises there, but somewhere they seem to have crossed a line no one knew to exist. Though the vast majority of the establishment is still in support of a stronger Europe, it is no longer taken for granted as the only way forward. More questions are being asked, more criticism is put forward and more justification is required for the bottomless well in which we deposit our money. The overall tendency seems to become EU-skepticism. There is, I think, also a reason why most of the traditional part of politics is in favor of Europe: They designed it. And we all have looks of awe when a demagogue delivers another fascinating speech about values, world peace, economic prosperity and open boundaries. Alas, no one will look with admiration when someone of a party that formerly took part in sketching the foundation of the EU says:  “I’m sorry, we spent millions, no trillions, of Euros but it has all not gone according to plan. We better give up and search for an alternative”.
But we can comfort ourselves. Europe is no failure, it needn’t become one either. In order to achieve success, a lot more needs to be done. None of that concerns wasting more money than we have so far allowed ourselves to. Transparency, justification, honesty and more journalism are some of our new keywords. For why would anyone want to pay for Europe, if it seems to bear no sweet, juicy fruits? Our free trade and travel have long been taken for granted and only economic kamikaze idiots would like to switch the stability, strength and ease of the Euro to their old currency. Truth is Europe can serve us in positive ways in forms many haven’t even considered possible, or indeed impossible without it. This sounds unconvincing? Then it is time some examples are being put forward:

•  Open boundaries for open education. Extensive networks of knowledge and those who participate in creating and upholding it (teachers, students, university organizations)
• Health care: Why wait for health care in the Netherlands when a Belgium hospital can provide instant care? Requirements concerning quality and quantity are necessary of course. We cannot let healthy systems being dragged down by less qualitative ones.
• Dozens of different opinions: Quite unnecessary and expensive. One ethical and political voice for Europe on international issues, via the United Nations or NATO.  It isn’t a problem we will not all agree with what is being said, that doesn’t happen on national level either. Good representation, supported by sound arguments is what counts.
• BlueCard system: The possibility to work in all EU countries by an easy, universal system that takes care of both pension- and labor rights.
• Common policy concerning environment durability.
• Fight terrorism and criminality by cooperation: Better communication when it comes to cross-border issues.

 There are countless more points that could be mentioned, but these will suffice to illustrate my case. Now to return to the beginning: Fear of loss of autonomy. ‘Too much power concentrated in one place is never a good thing’ is something that people echo all over the place. True, I cannot but agree with the lessons that history has taught us (or I least I hope they did). The easy to grasp reply is: Europe is a democracy, subdivided in more democracies. That doesn’t say much of course, not as long as there isn’t a hook-up between the people and their governments. It should provide us with some peace of mind and an intermediate conclusion: For we can say that not all of the Lisbon Treaty is satisfying, transparency being the most important thing they did not elaborate on in an extensive enough way. It solves or deals with some issues, but it doesn’t cure the disease that goes to our European heart. For instance, the power entitled to the European Parliament is, theoretical, correct. But no one ordinary person knows what that institution takes care of, let alone who is in it. This brings along the issue of legitimization, something which is in not in great supply at the moment, which is one of the major reasons why Europe is losing face and ground.
However, that doesn’t change the observation that we are missing our target from nearly all the angles we are shooting. When it comes to world politics we are divided, so we cannot make a fist. The ultimate muscle power that has driven Europe to prominence is now also in the line of fire: It’s openness towards those who are not yet a member. The sluggish acceptance of Turkey is one major example of this. Rather than embracing a potential ally, we are taking a risk, whether that would become a ‘float-free, neutral Turkey’ or ‘a Turkey that has a ‘tendency to embrace Islamic thought and politics’ does not really matter from our present point of view. When countries are part of the European Union demands can be made on political, economical and ethical issues, and let’s not forget: Western countries did not get to where they are by plucking roses. So much is our demand for strengthening the Union that we are forgetting how it came into existence: By accepting, not rejecting.

 The Lisbon Treaty might get things moving again, but not if we fail to recognize the need to redirect our attention: Rather than staring at problems, some hard work needs to be done in order to solve them. A treaty is one step, but the basic problem that undermines a fully functioning economic and political platform will remain: Transparency, or rather lack of it. We should remain realistic however, which means that we cannot expect the administrative machinery to take care of this. Their lack of will power and overwhelming bureaucracy is just what needs curing.
More journalism is the logical consequence of course, but the costs are high. The numbers of bills passed are extravagant, and they can all contain potential valuable information that needs to be put into context. There are hardly any newspapers or magazines that can afford such luxury. This means that many of them will have to base their stories on the same sources, which is good for neither quality nor diversity. More room to maneuver for politicians is not what we are looking for either. Reasonably liberal as I am, I can hardly say I like the word, but a subsidy for journalism to secure our future? More press and criticism is definitely needed in any case, as people need to be shown how Europe functions, what it is for, and especially where it fails. This means that Europe must remain in touch with its civilians. I said remain, but in this case it is probably better to say ‘get in touch’, because they are far from that ideal. Not that anyone who doesn’t care about politics should in my view try to influence any policy, but when Europe wants to legitimize itself it will need to justify itself.