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!

Let’s start with the good news: The appointment of two nobodies to the EU top jobs is a good argument if you want to discuss with ‘Euroskeptics’ about the existence of a “EU superstate” – even they might agree that Van Rompuy and Ashton are weak politicians that are not likely not raise the EU profile. To all the journalists out there: It is also a good time to get your facts straight on the “real” powers of the European Council President. It is not the “President of the EU” and if you look up a few basic facts you might discover the explanation why Von Rompuy makes perfect sense (from the perspective of the European Council!).

Moreover, one could argue that issues will be more important than people. I don’t think the media will take any interest in the work of Baroness Ashton or Van Rompuy over the next couple of years which might help to define the job profiles properly and focus on issues. Both, Ashton and van Rompuy are not the most qualified or experienced people which can also be an advantage. Expectations are not very high so they can only surprise us …

Philosophically it is an expression of the soft power approach as both candidates appear as consensus builders that are able to organise majorities and get the deals done. Catherine Ashton already stressed her approach of “quiet diplomacy” which can be interpreted as a notion of  ‘structural foreign policy’. It’s clearly a continuation of the traditional EU approach which, after all, proved to be quite successful in the last decades (generally speaking – obviously not in foreign policy…). And hey, it could have been even worse…

Ok, so much for the “good” news (if you are a hardcore optimist…). The bad aspects of the choice are somewhat more convincing. There will be no inspired leadership, no innovative approaches, no inspiration, which is  not a surprise given the lack of any relevant experience of both politicians. The European Union Law blog digged out an interesting quote by Herman Van Rompuy who thinks that “every country should emerge victorious from negotiations”. and that the institutional debate in the EU “is closed for a long period”. Plus, Van Rompuy is not a fan of Turkish EU accession.

Another interesting question is how did we end up with these two uninspiring candidates? Baroness Ashton is a real surprise, nobody thought of her as the new High Rep. Van Rompuy has been mentioned by the press for quite a while now. If you include Buzek, the president of the European parliament, into the equation it makes perfect sense as it shows an almost perfect representation with most formal boxes being ticked: East/West, North/South, small/large, a woman, left/right, … It strikes me that this kind of thinking does not produce the best results.

Especially the Socialists are to blame again. After failing to propose a own candidate for European Commission president earlier this year they now managed to get the High Rep position which was initially a smart political move. But then again Ashton seems to represents the lowest common denominator of the Socialists. They could have proposed a more qualified candidate – maybe even from another party! But it is fair to say that many potential candidates still prefer national instead of European careers.

Baroness Ashton is a solid and decent Commissioner but she does not have any foreign policy experience. It will be interesting to see whether she will actually be comfortable to interpret the new “double hatted” role which will be a quite demanding job! And Von Rompoy will keep a low profile:

As has been my custom in Belgian politics, I will remain discreet in the media, certainly during the forthcoming weeks.

So, do not expect anything spectacular from him! (Anyway, the ‘president’ post has always been hyped by the media – it is a chairman, nothing more nothing less! Frankly I don’t care too much about this president. Actually I think a strong personality would have caused more problems given the lack of proper ‘presidential’ powers!)

There won’t be a personalisation of EU politics which means that intergovernmental bargaining will become even more central to decision making. It seems that the French-German alliance is running the show again. At the moment, national governments think that it is not in their interest to have strong personalities at the EU level. Just think about Barroso, Ashton, Buzek, Van Rompuy…

Oh yes, and it is quite likely that nobody outside the Eurobubble will notice that the Lisbon treaty is in place…

Richard Whitman at Monnet musings highlights the external dimension of the decision:

What will outsiders make of these choices? In Beijing, Moscow and Washington policy-makers and analysts will be hard pressed to discern anything from these appointments. Neither seems to signal any clear intent for a new direction and character for the EU or the future direction of its foreign policy.

But will the Commission benefit from all that? I am not sure. Barroso is rather weak and uninspired. Much will depend on the new College of Commissioners. One thing is clear: The Commission president will remain the most known EU politician. Van Rompuy or Ashton are not likely to challenge this because they seem to be even weaker than Barroso.

We got the people that we deserve. It is the perfect recipe for uninspired continuity, boredom and status quo. Exactly what the EU needs!

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!