I am not sure there was any foreign policy stone left unturned in the highly anticipated Q&A session between MEPs and the new EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, this morning.
Over two hours, member of the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee managed to include questions on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Arctic, Russia, energy security, neighbourhood policy, Eastern partnership, transatlantic relations, central America, Africa, Sri Lanka, China, human rights, the Balkans, Cuba, development, the Middle East and the Honduras elections.
It’s a range that could have tripped any seasoned foreign policy expert. But Ashton – one and a half days into her new role – emerged mostly unscathed, largely by virtue of claiming (legitimately) that she did not have time to respond.
In one sequence, she had, by my count, at least 13 questions to answer in her allotted five minutes.
The high tally of that particular round was thanks to British Conservative MEP Charles Tannock who expressed concern about her “qualifications” for the job and then went on, apparently in an effort to underline his point, to ask questions on Azerbaijan, Armenia, Ukraine, the Atalanta mission and the EU-Columbia free trade agreement.
Only one MEP, the Finn Heidi Hautela, limited herself to one question for the new top diplomat.
Aside from simple time constraints, Ashton also carefully avoided detailed answers on virtually all questions. She pointed out, reasonably enough, that she needs to give a “considered opinion” after getting properly briefed and not a “gut reaction.”
She was oddly quiet on the external action service though – an issue where she does have a proper say.
How it is set up, where it sits, its staff and budget questions were obviously going to be brought up by MEPs, who are itching to have democratic oversight and control over the new body. Around six different deputies raised the issue but she only answered – that she had not yet decided- when pressed by the committee chairman.
There was some grumbling that her answers were evasive or not detailed. “That telephone number is now yours,” said one MEP, referring to the Kissinger conundrum, and pressing her to answer on whether she recognized the election in Honduras.
“I was very concerned that you haven’t been able to answer many questions” said another and urged more details in January, when her formal hearing as vice-president of the commission will take place.
But she played a bit of music for MEPs’ ears by pledging to come to the chamber frequently, saying she is willing to be held to account by them and asking them to help her get her job right. They will also be likely pleased to hear that her office will be in the European Commission – symbolically an important decision.
Ashton showed her steely side by putting Tannock in place on why she was chosen (“The answer is that 27 heads of government invited me to. I may not be your choice but I appear to be theirs”). And blind-sided another British Conservative who asked her to resign if the Conservatives come to power next year and seek a fresh mandate because she was “an afterthought.”
“Can I say your leader was one of the first to congratulate me. I do not think he is seeking my resignation,” she retorted.
It wasn’t a polished performance but it was quietly confident.
#1 by Renzino l'Europeo on December 2, 2009 - 8:50 pm
I may infer that probably the performance was ridiculous on the side of the MEPs, notably by the British Conservative one.
Surely I feel much better represented by Mrs. Ashton herself than by those MEPs.
#2 by droom on December 3, 2009 - 9:55 am
If you have ever seen operating English speaking parliamentarians (e.g. in Britain, Australia, etc.), democracy becomes a shame. They are brawling and shouting as if they are drunk in a pub, no kiddding, just unbiased observations.
Those same Brits are always shouting about the undemocratic nature of the EU, but when they have to perform, like in a debate with Mrs Ashton, they are underperforming like mad.
#3 by Duncan on December 3, 2009 - 10:16 am
droom – sadly true. The House of Commons is basically the domain of the man-child.
#4 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on December 3, 2009 - 10:19 am
The question about her resignation in case of a Conservative win in the UK is also a very poor one, showing deep misunderstanding of how the EU works and should work. Ashton knows very well (and said so) that her appointment does not make her represent the UK, and even less the Labour. She is now appointed by all countries and talks for the EU.
#5 by Desmond O'Toole on December 3, 2009 - 7:32 pm
I thought that Catherine Ashton’s appearance before the Parliamentary Committee was workmanlike and efficient. There was an opportunity for her to sketch out some broad policy principles ideas, and it’s a pity that she did not take that advantage of that opportunity. I hope that when she appears before the Committee again in January there will be more policy detail to discuss.
The questions that were asked by two British Conservatives were rather childish and silly and Ashton brushed them aside easilly. She was also able to deploy a little humour in dismissing the rather clumsy attempt at a Moscow-funding smear that one of the MEPs attempted.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#6 by Steve on December 4, 2009 - 5:04 pm
Well, Cathy seems to be off to an OK start, not trips in the first 100 meters! As I said before, all we can do is wait and see (http://stevehynd.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/welcome-to-cathy-ashton/).
Pedro, why do you always paint the UK as being the source of all the EU’s problems? OK, as I have said before, its isolationist policies can be a pain, but let’s not try and paint the 26 other MS as a perfect unity.
#7 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on December 4, 2009 - 5:51 pm
Yes, let’s not forget that, after all, it’s the Dutch and French (then later the Irish) who torpedoed the late EU Constitution. OK, if the British could have voted, they would have torpedoed too. But at least in their case, they were actually against it, so it would have been fairer.
#8 by Mrs Average on December 9, 2009 - 1:37 pm
@droom: sadly you are right about Anglo politicians. Wish they would stop bickering and bother to run our country!
@Pedro: I didn’t read all of your (passionate) writings but I do agree the UK is not really functioning properly as a member of the EU because of all the opt outs. The problem is that the UK is more like the rest of the “Empire” (USA, Australia, Canada etc) than continental Europe, so on many issues there are fundamental disagreements about how things should be run. Just look at financial regulation or fundamental rights.
The UK seems to be in the EU for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological ones, and that means it approaches things from a completely different standpoint to the rest of EUrope.
Either they need to change their ideology (will never happen) pragmatically accept the EU is a package deal (unlikely) or hold a referendum and opt for an EFTA-deal instead (if Conservatives win)
#9 by Clarify on January 14, 2010 - 2:47 pm
The UK is an extremely important member of the European family for reason that go back to the times of Caesar and Emeror Claudius. But to have the first foreign minister named from 1) Aristocracy
2) The Most Euroskeptic Populus in the Union.
Is a testament to insensititivy and contempt for the most basic elements of democracy and political reward to the people of Europe.
It shouts to our ears that it pays to be hostile to the European idea. The citizens of the UK just voted en masse for EuroSkeptik parties both Tories and British National Party and they were rewarded with the most important post in the European Union as the our face to the world.
That hurts for the ones of us who consider themselves servant of the European Idea like a Spear through our Heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!