So, what happened in the EU institutions so far? High Rep Catherine Ashton gave a statement on Egypt on Thursday (pdf) and on Friday evening (pdf). On Saturday European Council President Van Rompuy also issued a statement (pdf). All statements seemed very moderate and basically called all parties to refrain from violence.  However almost none of this made it into the mainstream media. Having watched the excellent Al Jazeera live stream during the last days I think it is safe to say to most people following the event did not heard of these statements. But why is that? Apart from political and institutional disagreements we could witness a few basic public diplomacy mistakes (This post is NOT  about EU-Egypt relations! Suffice to say that Egypt is in the EU neighbourhood and is included in the ENP. The question whether the EU has a coherent and efficient policy in place is another (and very important) question that I don’t want to discuss here):

• It was obvious on Friday afternoon around 3pm/4pm (Brussels time) what was happening in Egypt. However, no statement of Ashton in the afternoon. The statement was published in the evening – after a statement of Hillary Clinton (at least this is how I remember it).  It would have been crucial to put out a statement before Washington wakes up to the story because as long as the Americans do not react on a story all media outlets would at least consider to report the EU reaction. (Not to mention the difficulty for the US to criticise Mubarak and Obama’s failure to mention “democracy” in his speech on Friday – a real opportunity for the EU!) The first crucial reaction is important if one wants to shape the discourse and influence events!

• The most striking EU problem has been the lack of any video footage. This is a basic PR mistake. Public diplomacy only exists if the public knows about your diplomacy. Especially in the case of the “televised” protests in Egypt it would have been a good opportunity to get Ashton on TV!  Is it really that difficult to organise an exclusive Ashton interview for Al Jazeera?  Or a press conference with Catherine Ashton, let’s  say on Friday at 5pm?  Later in the evening Clinton and Obama appeared on TV and the pictures were circulated on all major news outlets…

• I know these criticisms might be a bit unfair given that the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council will take place on Monday 31/1  and the agenda has been changed and Egypt is now included.  However, a joint statement of all 27 EU Member States 3 days after Friday 28/1 and almost a week after 25/1 is just too late. Even if the EU manages at least to agree on one  position – nobody will take notice (I hope I am wrong on this though!) So, the timing needs to be improved.

• It is difficult to coordinate 27 MfAs but this is the job of Ms Ashton – also on a Friday afternoon or during the weekend! We were promised that the Lisbon Treaty would make everything more efficient – well it is not happening, is it?  And statements are not (yet) policy – here the High Rep can improvise to a certain extent (there are quite a few documents on EU-Egypt relations that can be used for inspiration)! One could come to the conclusion that the lack of foreign policy expertise of Ms Ashton is part of the problem here. She does not seem to have a “feeling” for the situation. So if the EU is serious about being an actor in international politics it needs to react more quickly on major international events! It’s the media, stupid!

• And on Saturday we also witnessed the “worst case scenario” in  EU foreign policy. A joint statement of the UK, France, Germany on Egypt. The “big three”: Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy took over, issued a statement and it made it into all major news! The statement was published in German, English and French on the respective national websites:

“We are deeply concerned about the events that we are witnessing in Egypt. We recognise the moderating role President Mubarak has played over many years in the Middle East. We now urge him to show the same moderation in addressing the current situation in Egypt.”

“We call on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians, and on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.

“It is essential that the further political, economic and social reforms President Mubarak has promised are implemented fully and quickly and meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

“There must be full respect for human rights and democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet, and the right of peaceful assembly.”

“The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances and a longing for a just and better future. We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections.”

So, business as usual. No “common” foreign policy of the EU. The “big three” sideline the EU and dominate the headlines and the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.  One could of course argue whether “one voice – one policy” or ” many voices – one policy” is the better strategy. However, it would be interesting to know whether they actually tried to organise a EU initiative or if the call for “free and fair elections”(arguably, the most radical part of the statement) is really contested among EU member states? Another question is if Ms Ashton knew about this initiative and whether she agreed with it…

Update 31/1/2011:  Council Conclusions on Egypt (pdf)

—–

Update 11/2/2011: Mubarak resigned – and the EU must have learnt a lesson! High Rep Ashton reacted rather quickly. (maybe an indication that the resignation was not such a surprise?) One hour after the official annoucment of Mubaraks resignation, High Rep Ashton did a live TV interview on the BBC and on Al Jazeera! She must have been the first international politician giving a statement on live TV. As a result most press coverage included Ashton’s remarks, official US statements came only several hours later. Furthermore, two hours after the resignation a press briefing in Brussels was organised and a joint statement of High Rep Ashton, European Counicl President Van Rompuy, Commission President Barroso was issued. It was quite an impressive performance of EU public diplomacy!

This week Cathy Ashton clashed again with the European Parliament and it seems the Parliament gets a few concessions regarding the important budgetary oversight -  and the not so important details about EP visits to delegation…  However, in the committee earlier this week it seemed to me that most MEPs were more concerned with posts,  geographical balance,  and gender quotas. Don’t get me wrong, this is important but it might not be the most important issue for the EEAS at the moment.

But I think we should not get carried away by the EEAS. Basically the EEAS is a institutional cleaning exercise.  The (IMHO:  modest) idea is to streamline decision making procedures and put all existing EU foreign policy tools in one institutional framework with one line of command. In other words institutional streamlining. That is the theory but as we see this in itself is rather difficult.

Some people that are close to Ashton don’t seem to trust her and are happy to use a French journalist to publish stories that aim at discrediting her. At the same time turf wars broke out between the European Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the member states about almost all EEAS aspects. But in a way this is a normal reflex  when a  new institutional framework is created.

And then there is the row about languages: German Foreign Minister Westerwelle wants to make sure that German is an official language. The French Foreign Minister “Secretary of State for European Affairs” (Thanks Andre!) Lallouche  wants  Cathy Asthon to learn better French.  Everyone wants to have a say about the EEAS. People seem to be attracted by diplomatic passports. But nobody thinks about policy innovation and how to actually develop a EU foreign policy. And Cathy Ashton is right: “If we pull together we can safeguard our interests. If not, others will make the decisions for us. It’s that simple.” And please note that she said “safeguard” and not “impose”..

At the moment it seems that the EEAS only exists that national diplomats get another career option. It strikes me why there need to be national diplomats in the EEAS if member states did not give up anything. They keep their embassies and foreign ministries and do not delegate any new responsibility to the EEAS.  But this seemed to be the price for the double hatted High Rep. and a bit of institutional streamlining… After all,  the Lisbon treaty is quite a modest reform treaty and in many ways the lowest common denominator.

So, CSDP decisions still require unanimity in the Council.  And there don’t seem to be any plans to communitarise anything in the future! (EEAS to deal with Schengen Visas would have been an option, also consular services in general) We will see a rebranding of existing EC delegations. Incremental changes might lead to some good outcomes. Generally, implementation might indeed improve -  but the decisions about the priorities will not improve at all. Some cooperation practices in international organisations might be improved and some funding lines might work better.  So far the EEAS debate has not focused on any innovative new policies. Everyone seems to hope that once it is in place everything will go a bit more smoothly and coherently. But there is hardly any dramatic change for EU foreign policy on the horizon.

So what could be done to give a innovative boost to the EEAS? Maybe some member states should consider closing some embassies!? Governmental spending is huge and national budget deficits are rising. Wouldn’t that be a good justification to close a few expensive embassies that mainly serve representative functions? Here is the deal: If you close an embassy – one of your diplomats will become head of a EEAS embassy!

However, despite all the talk about the European Council President, this is actually the more important position for one single reason:  The High Rep will be able to use the EU foreign policy machinery including (post EEAS) – Commission staff (RELEX), Council Secretariat staff (including ESDP and CFSP tools plus all the  ‘Special Representatives’) and the newly created European External Action Service.

Moreover the new High Rep will be a Vice-President of the European Commission and chair the Foreign Affairs Councils. Therefore I agree with Simon Hix who said “The president could end up being all prestige and no power, while the high representative is real power and little prestige.” The European Council President only chairs a couple of summits and has no job description – it is not even clear whether he will get office staff… Well, one sentence in the Lisbon treaty could  become problematic:

It is the Council President (President of the European Council) who will “ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy”. He shall do that, however: “without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”.

So, team play will be necessary at least to a certain extent. However, it is very unfortunate that the question of who becomes High Rep depends on who will be chosen as European Council President – and not the other way round!

So let’s have a quick round of possible candidates:

Today, speculations included David Miliband (UK Foreign Secretary -ruled himself out on twitter!), frequently mentioned is also Olli Rehn (EU enlargement commissioner) as well as Ursula Plassnik (former Foreign Minister of Austria) and Dora Bakoyannis (former Foreign Minister of Greece). Several other names have been mentioned in the last couple of months: former External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten, former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel and former NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Anyone in there who could be the next High Rep? I think David Miliband could be a good candidate but he might not be experienced enough – and, given his ambition to become the next leader of the Labour party, I doubt whether he is a serious candidate. Let’s ask him in 5 years again!  What about the rest? They all seem rather boring with a lack vision for EU foreign policy. Unfortunately I do not know much about Ursula Plassnik  and Dora Bakoyannis. Chris Patten and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer are certainly well respected in Brussels.  Especially Jaap de Hoop Scheffer could be a serious candidate given his NATO experience – he would be a solid and diplomatic High Rep without being too demanding towards member states.  Olli Rehn lacks experience and being EU enlargement Commissioner may not be enough to get the job. However, a High Rep without political ambition (de Hoop Scheffer) or lack of experience (Rehn) could exactly be the sort of person the European Council is looking for…

But is that everything we can come up with?  The High Rep should be THE foreign policy authority of the EU, with the ability to negotiate deals in the Foreign Affairs Council  – so the person needs to be high profile and should have considerable foreign policy experience.  European Foreign Policy is one policy in which citizens want to see a stronger EU. The new High Rep needs to be able to communicate this clearly and passionately. Moreover, the person is expected to negotiate worldwide – so there we need someone recognizable with a proven track record in international negotiation. (If Tony Blair was serious about a EU job – he should go for that one and not the one with prestige and the misleading title).  So who else could be doing this kind of job:

Joschka Fischer – a former German foreign minister. He would certainly tick all the boxes. He has huge foreign policy experience, is known internationally and with good connections in the Middle East and in the US (after being a Visiting Fellow at Princeton and working in Madeleine Albright’s consultancy). Recently, he started working in support of the Nabucco pipeline. He has been a very charismatic and popular politician – and can still fill conference centres in London, Brussels or Washington! He would certainly be able to give the EU a real voice in foreign affairs. That unfortunately rules him out -  exactly that is not wanted by our dear politicians.

Martti Ahtisaari – a former president of Finland.  Wouldn’t it be great if Obama and Athisaari met and the press could have a headline like “Two Nobel peace prize winners demand…” – certainly Ahtisaari is very knowledgeable and respected internationally. He has an excellent reputation as a conflict mediator (he got the Nobel peace price for that!) and  has been an active advocate of a more powerful EU foreign policy. Again not the best thing to do in the present political climate. He might lack a bit of charisma (compared to Fischer…) which could be seen as an asset by the European Council…

Carl Bildt – the current Swedish foreign minister. Another strong candidate judging on his vast foreign policy experience. He is the only serving foreign minister of all the candidates which is an advantage because connections are important!  However, some (France, Germany) often claim he is too outspoken on Russia. He is a well known blogger and often grabs media attention with some bold statements. Moreover, being in the spotlight of EU politics due to the Swedish Council Presidency might be helpful (although the bold statement could ruin it…).

So, who has realistic chances? At the moment the race seems very open (or the secret is being kept well…) – Jaap de Hoop Sheffer, Chris Patten and  Olli Rehn could be realistic candidates, the joker could be Carl Bildt. Chances are that we get someone that has not been subject of any rumours lately. (The French are suspiciously silent…) And obviously it always depends a lot on who will become European Council President in terms of political and geographical balance…

But one thing is certain: unfortunately the best candidates will have absolutely no chance of getting the job!

• A Bit of Humor « The Balkan Report

  A new balkan blog with this hilarious post: “In the early days of the siege of Sarajevo in the mid-1990s, a photo of a half-ruined post office with three items of graffiti written on its wall captured the imagination of the world. The first graffito read “This is Serbia!”; the second stated “This is Bosnia”. And someone scrawled underneath, “No, you idiots, it’s a post office!”

• The Obama campaign’s ‘unsung hero’

  Very interesting article about Jeffrey Berman, Barack Obama’s director of delegate selection…

• Why Ireland must say ‘Yes’ to Lisbon

  Andrew Duff (MEP) on the Lisbon Treaty and the upcoming referendum in Ireland and why the Irish eurosceptics are wrong.

• Ukraine: A lynchpin in Europe’s ‘Manifest Destiny’?

  “Global Power Europe” makes the case for a more decisive European approach towards Ukraine. And this “firm commitment” is EU accession..

• Some Detainees Are Drugged For Deportation

  Another shocking story on human rights in the US: “The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will to keep them sedated during the trip back to their home country, according to medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged.”

• Is European democracy promotion on the wane? (pdf)

  A CEPS research paper that looks at “serious limits across three strands of democracy policy – the magnitude of incentives offered in return for democratic change, the degree of critical pressure exerted for democratic reform and the scale of European democracy funding.”

• EU Funds in Central and Eastern Europe: Cohesion or Collision?

  This interactive map developed by CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe shows 50 damaging projects planned or already underway in Central and Eastern Europe at a total cost to EU taxpayers of €10 billion.

• Questions raised over EU diplomatic service

  The new Lisbon treaty is (probably deliberately!) very vague on the issue of a EEAS (European External Action Service). Indeed, clarity is something else, as some of the rather basic things still need to be solved, for example the interaction between the Council, the Commission and the member state staff, the role of the European Parliament, the formal title of the head of the missions and the formal title of the delegations…as well as the question “where the EEAS and the foreign policy chief will be situated.” Luckily, only in 2010 the final proposal need to be finalised.

• The surprise that may await Europe

  Good and comprehensive analysis of the election results in Serbia.

• Global Power Europe: The return of ‘History’?

  “Do we—Europeans—have the political vision and will to make it happen? Do we want to remain the shapers of history, or would we rather continue under the delusions so ruefully picked apart by people like Kagan?” (…) On the present trajectory, of declining European military budgets; ill-equipped and under-prepared armed forces; poorly crafted foreign and security policies, particularly on the part of European Union Member States like Germany, Italy and Spain, one could be forgiven for thinking that the European Union’s future looks rather bleak. And as Kagan warns us, we need more than hope to prove them wrong…”