So US president Barack Obama may not bother to come to the EU-US summit after all. Whatever he ultimately decides, the prospect of his visit has certainly been putting the EU’s brand new foreign policy structures under quite a strain.
Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero wanted him in Madrid. EU council president Herman Van Rompuy had pleaded for Brussels. The new Lisbon Treaty, just two months in place, leaves open where bilateral summits with third countries should be held. The head says Brussels. But the heart – at least the Spanish (political) heart – says Madrid.
And just when it appeared that the EU’s players had sorted this inglorious little tussle out – the May summit is to be in Madrid but after Spain’s EU presidency such summits will be held in Brussels (say Van Rompuy’s people anyway) – the White House has indicated it won’t play ball. Oddly enough.
The Wall Street Journal quotes various US officials as saying that the US had never intended to come to the summit; the decision was due to the EU’s own dilemma over where the summit should be; Obama’s domestic political troubles meant he would not be taking the time or laying the blame on his heavy travel schedule. Last year, the US president travelled to Europe six times.
Certainly the EU, going over and beyond the location problems, has not helped its case. As Spiegel Online reported over the weekend, the antics are exercising the minds of protocol specialists. Who should sit next to whom? And who gets to shake Obama’s hand first? According to the German news website, Van Rompuy’s people have suggested that Zapatero should shake Obama’s hand first while Van Rompuy gets to sit on his right during dinner. Zapatero would sit opposite him, although, alas, this would mean no camera exposure for the Spanish prime minister.
But whatever the final decision – and nobody seems sure of anything yet – the potential no-show does concentrate the minds somewhat.
It would be a significant symbolic blow if Obama were to decide not to come to the first bilateral summit after the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which after all, is supposed to fix the EU’s foreign policy representation and make it a serious player on the world stage.
(For the record, EU diplomats are saying that as Spain put so much effort into preparing its calendar for the presidency, it should be given some slack on this issue. And everywhere else, it seems. Spanish foreign minister Miguel Moratinos is far from taking a backseat role on foreign policy issues, although technically, it’s now Catherine Ashton’s job. After the Spanish presidency, things will assume their proper Lisbon-ish form, say the same diplomats. Hmm, I say start as you mean to go on or others (EU presidencies) will continue in the same disruptive vein.)
#1 by Damien on February 1, 2010 - 6:01 pm
It would be my logic that who ever was voted directly by the people should seat beside the US President.
In this case, the Spanish.
It would be like speaker of the Irish Dail sitting beside Obama while the Taoiseach looks on from afar.
#2 by DOCM on February 1, 2010 - 8:49 pm
The post of President of the European Council was created, not because the “larger” Member States objected to being chaired by one of their own number but because the objected to being chaired by one of “smaller” Member States. (Larger and smaller in this context are quite flexible concepts. At the time of the first Enlargement, for example, the Netherlands had a GNP as big as all the new Member States combined).
Zapatero and the Socialists are in a particularly difficult position as the economic difficulties of Spain undermine the country’s status as a “larger” Member State. It is hardly surprising that the White House was unimpressed by the antics involved. However, the view that the new arrangements will settle down after a few years is probably correct. The aim is not to stop competent hands grabbing the steering-wheel of Europe but to stop those of countries that do not even know how to drive.
#3 by Pegi Keating on February 2, 2010 - 3:49 pm
I have always been of the opinion that the United States did not want the EU to be a success as a political project; the EU is even listed as a \threat\ in some US policy documents.
However, sometimes the EU itself makes such a dogs dinner of our basic institutional arrangements I wonder whether the US need ever have any such concerns. For goodness sake – sort this out!
#4 by Damien on February 3, 2010 - 1:59 pm
I’m surprised that there is confusion within the US government as to who and when Obama should meet and greet the Europeans.
Surely, the US government have some of the best lawyers( some in EU law) and political analysists who keep track of developments in Europe.
I believe firmly, that the EU lost the sight of the ball during the period between the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty and the approval in the Irish revote. For during that time, the EU was OBSESSED with getting the treaty through hailed as the saviour to all our problems. They lost sight of the real moving picture that the treaty was not the saviour it was thought to be.
#5 by Thomas on February 3, 2010 - 5:39 pm
Yep – but don’t forget that the next presidency is… Belgium. I doubt that Van Rompuy will need to discuss protocol with Yves Leterme, who (finally) became prime minister thanks to Van Rompuy. (ok, Leterme being a super fumbler, who knows)
Love your blog!