Spanish foreign minister Miguel Moratinos made a rather revealing comment in the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament this morning. Pleading for more time to answer the 1000 questions MEPs insist on asking at once, he said: “I think the rotating presidency should have some privileges, especially in the European Parliament.” And this laced with a tinge of exasperation.
It nicely sums up difficulty of this so-called ‘transition’ EU presidency for its top actors – the recently (US) jilted prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Spain’s top diplomat. They want a role but they are not really supposed to have a role.
The rotating presidency is not gone – it was just (openly) hidden in the complex folds of the Lisbon Treaty, upon us now, in all its foreign policy nebulousness, for a whole two months.
But the six-month presidency is supposed to operate behind the scenes, doing much of the policy spadework but for little of the glory. Herman Van Rompuy, as EU council president, and Catherine Ashton, as the EU’s foreign policy chief, are now the main actors. That is going to take some getting used to.
As Spain is the first to hold the job under the Lisbon Treaty, it is being given some leeway. It will host a bilateral summit with Latin America and it made a truly valiant photo-stealing attempt at holding the EU-US summit, while Moratinos, until now at least, has felt no particular restraint on speaking out on foreign policy issues.
I went along to the committee this morning because I was curious to hear how Moratinos would behave, down, as he was, to present the foreign policy priorities of the Spanish presidency. He started off by saying he fully “wholeheartedly supported” Ashton – who sent him to the committee – and noting that his people are in constant contact with hers on issues “where she perhaps can’t deliver.”Ho hum.
And then he made an interesting distinction. “I can’t talk about a Spanish presidency for CFSP” he said but added that there are some areas where Spain “would like to focus more attention.” These include enlargement and neighbourhood policy (the eastern partnership and Mediterranean Union) and Africa.
So this is how it might be in the future. It appears, politically speaking at least, inconceivable that the foreign ministers of future EU presidencies do not have any role. But Moratinos seems to be laying the path for future presidencies to concentrate on a few areas that are not foreign policy exactly but more neighbourhood relations and things of interest in that particular presidency’s back yard.
Well time will tell. But for the moment, little appears to have changed. After his committee appearance, I tried to ask Moratinos a question on what role he thought the foreign ministers of future EU presidencies would have. But I was trampled out of the microphone space by other journalists keen to ask questions on the EU’s position on Syria and other issues. Moratinos happily obliged.
But, I have to say Catherine Ashton is making it a bit too easy for him to expand upon issues as he pleases. I have defended her on these pages and I continue to do so. She is a novice in a huge and difficult new job, so she needs time. Yet today I read an interview with her in the Financial Times, in which she said precisely nothing at all. If you give an interview with the best-read newspaper in Brussels, you say something. Come on Lady Ashton, stop hiding! You are the foreign policy face of the EU.
#1 by DOCM on February 4, 2010 - 9:08 pm
The rotating Presidency is not hidden in the folds of the Lisbon Treaty. It is there in black and white in the treaty texts (and doubly underlined in the new Rules of Procedure of the Council).
The penny that has to drop with the Brussels press commentariat is that the EU has a Common Foreign and Security Policy, not a “foreign policy”. Only states can have the latter and the EU is not a state. Indeed, Declaration (14) to the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the CFSP “will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy”.
What could be clearer?
Agreed that there is scope for confusion, especially as the CFSP is largely a French creation to camouflage the country’s return to being a full member of NATO. In that role, France has shown herself, in the eyes of Washington at least, as a reliable partner, which may not be the view taken with regard to Spain.
In terms of managing the transition to the new treaty arrangements, Madrid has not covered itself in glory and the evidence is there for all to see, mainly to the detriment of Spain.
To take a quote from an old UK sitcom, Lady Ashton did not get to where she is today by rushing her fences, which is more than can be said for others. She can only expound on the EU’s position in relation to a particular CFSP issue when it has one. This is often sadly lacking.
Neither the Commission nor the European Parliament has any formal role in the decision-making procedure with regard to arriving at CFSP positions. While the Commission does not need to be told, someone should tell the more excitable members of the Parliament.
#2 by Steve Peers on February 5, 2010 - 8:47 am
I think it must also be remembered that Mrs. Ashton’s position is a little awkward until the Commission is properly in post, and also practically it is difficult for her to do the job until the European External Action Service is set up and running (for instance, see OJ 2009 L 322/28 – she does not control Council working parties until 6-12 months after the EEAS is set up). Furthermore Spain had to plan its presidency without being sure until late in the day if and when the Lisbon Treaty would come into force at all. Once these factors change and the Presidency is (as usual) chaired by a small Member State as from July, we will then see how the new EU system really operates in practice.
By the way, Presidency foreign ministers still chair the General Affairs Council (as distinct from the External Relations Council), which has the competence to discuss enlargement issues (see Art. 2(2) of the Council’s rules of procedure, OJ 2009 L 325/35), but not issues like neighbourhood policy and the Mediterranean.
#3 by andrew on February 5, 2010 - 10:06 am
let us recall that solana was a quiet man as well. he had this aura of effectiveness about him and everyone said he was a magician in private meetings with foreign leaders, but he said very little of substance in the press.
it will be interesting to see what gossip comes out once ashton starts mingling with leaders in israel, russia and so on. they will all say nice things about her in public for starters. but one cd imagine a lavrov or a lieberman savaging her if need be.
it was lavrov who said to miliband on georgia “who the fuck are you to lecture me on human rights?” and the russians made sure this leaked to UK press to make miliband look like a schoolboy.
#4 by Marcel on February 9, 2010 - 12:55 am
DOCM (1) wrote: To take a quote from an old UK sitcom, Lady Ashton did not get to where she is today by rushing her fences.
—
She also didn’t get there by ever being elected, because elections are for commoners, not elitists such as her.
And is it just me or is the EU turning into a Byzantine-esque maze-like structure? Who the heck is in charge and how do we vote the clown out?
#5 by al on February 10, 2010 - 10:19 am
Believe it or not, Germany’s in charge. The whole unelected elite structure takes their cues from Berlin.
For a Byzantine structure, this has to be the big winner of all history, though. All the people that hold the power are appointed and cannot be voted out; the unicameral elected body has no real power. They’ve made the ultimate mockery of representative democracy while taking the absurdity of the Soviet “‘democratic’ centralism” concept to new depths of arrogance. Separation of powers?—what’s that? Barroso replacing “declaration of independence” in speeches with “declaration of interdependence” (whoa, that’s a form of dependence, Jose). “Subsidiarity” and “proportionality”…principles of top-down government, right out of the social teaching of one particular religion, which destroys secularism. A single currency, which gives one country all the power and makes other countries dependent, both politically and economically (never mind designed to fail from the outset, by making it a fiat currency). A single market too, which does the same thing but to a greater degree (and what form of market?—the Soziale Marktwirtschaft). Also, a constitution in the form of a treaty, which is lifted from the methods of the Iron Chancellor. It’s already been called an empire; no democratic union would dare use the term in self-description.