Charlemagne | European foreign policy

The Berlusconi option for Lady Ashton?

The irrelevance of the European Union's new diplomatic service and its head, Cathy Ashton

By Charlemagne | BRUSSELS

WHEN it is not fretting about the failures of the euro, Brussels's favourite pastime is to fret about the failures of its diplomatic arm, the European External Action Service (EEAS).

With the Arab world in ferment,the West as a whole in decline and America drawing down its military commitment to Europe, one would assume that Europeans would have a lot to think about and do in international affairs. But a year after the launch of its "foreign ministry", though, the despair is palpable. Fewer and fewer people have anything good to say about its boss, Cathy Ashton.

One unusually fierce shot was fired last month from the pages of The Economist's sister publication, European Voice (here). The author, Toby Vogel, concluded:

I wrote here a year ago that the EEAS would be judged not by its performance at launch but by the state of the EU's foreign and security policy after a year or two. The new service is still failing. Among all the design flaws that have held back the EEAS, by far the biggest has been to put Ashton in charge of it.

Since then the reports and assessments have been coming in thick and fast. One poor grade comes from the foreign-policy “scorecard” issued by the European Council on Foreign Relations. Another think-tank, FRIDE, analyses more generally the growing trend towards commercial interests in "Challenges for European Foreign Policy in 2012" (PDF here).

Perhaps the most comprehensive demolition came today from Stefan Lehne, a former senior Austrian diplomat who worked for Mrs Ashton's predecessor, Javier Solana.

His analysis, "More Action, Better Service: How to Strengthen the European External Action Service" (PDF here) is phrased diplomatically, as one might expect, but its exposition of the weakness of the EEAS is more devastating for the sober tone in which it is delivered. In some ways, he concludes, the situation is worse today than it was under the previous system of fragmented roles.

Any new organisation is bound to have its teething problems, particularly one such as the EEAS, which incorporates functions that had been performed by several officers, and which must reconcile the aims and prejudices of 27 different countries. The service, moreover, has been systematically undermined by the European Commission, and by the bigger beasts among the foreign ministers. But much of the trouble boils down to poor leadership, ie, Lady Ashton. There are some first-rate people in the EEAS. But the stories of chaos in her entourage and despair among her subordinates are worryingly commonplace.

At the pamphlet's launch today by Carnegie Europe, a think-tank in Brussels, I was asked to offer a response to Mr Lehne's analysis. I have occasionally written about the EEAS in the Charlemagne column (“Waiting for the big call”, “Out of the limelight” and “High Noon over Palestine”). I have tried to stay away from the popular Brussels blood sport of Ashton-baiting, and even ventured to report in one piece that both Israelis and Palestinians were taking her mediation seriously. Alas, I too am losing hope in the EEAS. Radical rethinking is needed. Below are my speaking notes:


I CAME to Brussels having spent most of my career as a foreign correspondent, so foreign policy is what interests me. But when people start to talk about the EEAS I feel utterly deflated.

The euro crisis has dragged on for two years, but at least has the thrill of being on the edge of catastrophe. The EEAS is simply irrelevant. I have stopped reading the endless statements that the service puts out. I had breakfast this morning with a former American diplomat, and I asked him what Washington was saying about the EEAS: “Nothing,” he replied.

So I admire the people like Stefan Lehne who still summon the enthusiasm to write about EEAS and want to improve it. Many of his ideas are sensible. But waiting for Europe to punch its weight in the world is a bit like the joke about Moses asking God: “Will the Jews and the Arabs ever make peace?” Yes, says God, but not in my lifetime.

The EEAS born with multiple curses:

- it was conceived at the time of Constitutional Treaty, when people could still write that the 21st century would belong to Europe. But it was born after the debacle over the "no" votes in France and Netherlands, raising the question of whether people still supported EU project

- It is trying to take the lead from foreign ministers who already feel they are being marginalisedby prime ministers who conduct their own foreign policy, and by a Brussels system that now regards finance ministers as the princes

- The EEAS is trying to establish itself in a time when Europe's soft power is crumbling fast. The crisis over the euro affects everything. As the ECFR Scorecard put it, Europe has gone from being distracted by the euro crisis to being the problem of international politics

- The choice of Lady Ashton herself was hardly inspired. It seems to me you can have an inexperienced foreign minister with an established bureaucracy, or an experienced foreign minister with no bureaucracy. You can't have an inexperienced foreign minister with no foreign ministry

Stefan Lehne's paper rightly says the EEAS should focus on a small number of priorities, and seek some early achievements. Nothing breeds success like success itself. But this is not so easy, for at least two reasons.

First, with 27 member states it is hard to have a small list of priorities. Newer members in eastern Europe want to focus on the Eastern Partnership. Southern Europeans want focus on North Africa. Big powers want a role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq and Iran. And if the EEAS cannot act in the Balkans, what is the point of having it? The EU institutions obviously want their new diplomatic service to deal with “strategic partners”: America, Russia, China, India and Brazil. As one of the world's biggest aid donors, the EU can hardly stand aloof from Africa. Many member-states have colonial bonds in Latin America, the Caribbean and other far-flung places...

As you see, the list of priorities expands quickly. The EU can probably afford to ignore Papua New Guinea and Micronesia, but someone, somewhere, will find reasons why they are important too.

The second problem with the recommendation is that you cannot have success simply by willing it. Particularly in foreign policy, you can control the inputsthe number of meetings, the amount of aid, etbut the outcomes are serendipitous. Foreign policy is a form of art, not engineering.

Even Hillary Clinton, the foreign minister of the most powerful country in the world, cannot claim that many clear victories.

- Has she brought peace to the Middle East? No

- Has she stopped Iran's nuclear programme? No

- Has America fixed Afghanistan? No, and the Taliban look like they are about to win a famous victory

So foreign policy is about the management of a complicated world. It is a often a bluff: does the foreign minister look and sound right? Does he or she carry authority? It is very hard to do this if, like Cathy Ashton, you are afraid of talking to journalists.

When people describe the achievements of the EEAS, they usually talk about inputs: we made a statement, we reached agreement and above all, we agreed a package of sanctions. If European foreign policy is simply about enacting sanctions, then you hardly need the EEAS.

The Arab spring was the great opportunity for European foreign policy. In fact the neighbourhood policy produced by Lady Ashton and the Commission was sensible, offering post-dictatorial Arab states the Three Ms: mobility, markets and money. But we discover that these are not in the gift of the EEAS. They can be granted by the Commission, to some extent, and above all by member-states.

Still, there are some areas where the EEAS might offer added value.

- It could help pool resources, especially for smaller countries that cannot afford a global diplomatic network. Even Sweden has closed down its embassy in Belgium.

- It could provide first-rate strategic analysis. Brussels is filled with number-crunchers and other experts. But when did you last hear Cathy Ashton deliver a speech on the future challenges facing Europe?

European countries have common interests that they can pursue together. In many areas, force of numbers matters. So on top of Stefan Lehne's recommendations for changes to the system and the bureaucracy, we should consider the Berlusconi option: like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany could just smirk at each other, and let the world know that Lady Ashton has lost their confidence.

If she stepped down, you could then appoint someone with a good contacts book and a degree of magnetism, or at least some confidence. Then, perhaps, the EEAS might have a chance of doing something useful.

Discover more

Enfant de la Patrie

A nice French kid from Normandy turns up in Syria, beheading people for the Islamic State

All that glitters

Police raids suggest Portugal's scheme to sell residence permits for investments may be rotten