European leaders need a president, not a nonentity
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Philip Stephens
Wanted: a president for Europe. Only nonentities need apply.
The other day the European reform treaty (you know, the one recast from the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters) jumped another hurdle. Gordon Brown's British government faced down calls from the Conservative opposition that it should hold a referendum. Mr Brown now seems pretty much assured of parliamentary ratification.
Barring accidents - eurosceptics of all national stripes are preparing a last stand in the Irish Republic when it holds a plebiscite -- the treaty should come into force by December.
That means the European Union (EU) must fill a new post -- president of the European Council. At present, the job is shuffled around existing EU leaders every six months. Unburdened by national office, the new president will be appointed for three years.
The role has not been properly defined. The only clear remits are to chair regular summits of EU leaders and to represent them at set-piece talks with foreign governments. The job description, though, is permissive: most probably, its boundaries will be set by the personality and authority of the first president.
The Union never makes these things easy. It has decided that the six-monthly rotating principle will remain for meetings, say, of finance or environment ministers. To add to the complexity, the status of its foreign policy tsar, at present the able Javier Solana, is also to be beefed up.
All that said, you would think that the Union would be looking for a big figure - someone commanding recognition and respect in Washington, Moscow, Delhi and Beijing. The new post, after all, is a recognition of a vital shift in Europe's ambition and focus. For its first half-century the Union's purpose was to promote peace and prosperity on its own continent. There is more to do, not least in the Balkans. The real challenge now, though, is to safeguard and promote European interests and values on the global stage. Self-evidently it needs a voice that will be heard by the great powers.
Did I say self-evidently? Not a bit of it, retort the eurocrats. Tony Blair, they scoff, should stick to the lucrative lecture circuit. The names being whispered in Brussels are those of politicians that even most Europeans have never heard of.
The appointment of someone who might actually walk tall on the international stage is seen as, well, too disturbing of the present equilibrium. How would such a president work alongside Mr Solana? Worse, he or she might not get on with José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission. To appoint someone of stature would risk turf wars.
The solution? Choose a political eunuch, someone unthreatening who will act in the manner of a disinterested bureaucrat: a fixer not a leader. Never mind if this figure goes unrecognised in the White House or the Great Hall of the People. Better to preserve the bureaucratic peace.
There are national politics in this mix. The purpose of the treaty change was to give the European Council - the Union's highest decision-making body - continuity and consistency of leadership. For that very reason many of the EU's smaller states never really wanted the new president. It was a Franco-British idea. Smaller states feared it would strengthen co-operation between governments at the expense of the EU institutions. There was a danger they would be marginalised. Germany, the most integrationist of the big states, expressed some sympathy.
That argument, though, has been fought and lost. At issue now is whether the Union wants to exercise political as well as economic clout. Looking at the names being floated as putative contenders, the answer seems to be a resounding no.
I am told that Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, sees himself as the front-runner. Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen has been mentioned since someone heard he is busy learning French. Another possibility is said to be Ireland's Bertie Ahern. Berlin is said to look kindly on Wolfgang Schüssel, the former Austrian prime minister. There are doubtless others.
These are bright people. Small countries can produce brilliant politicians. Putting aside a personal prejudice against EU institutions being forever run by Luxembourgers, I am not quarrelling with these candidates' competence. But it is no disrespect to say that none is exactly a household name. Their candidacies seem to speak instead to a deliberate paucity of ambition about Europe's global role. How seriously would they be taken by John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Imagine the reception from Dmitry Medvedev when Mr Juncker turned up in Moscow to protest against his decision to turn off the gas. How much weight would these candidates carry even in Europe?
At this point, the riposte tends to be, well, who else? Mr Blair is said to be disqualified because of the rupture over the Iraq war. The logic here is curious. The deepest divide over Iraq was between Britain and France. Nicolas Sarkozy - isn't he the French president? - is Mr Blair's cheerleader.
Ah, say champions of the faceless, Mr Blair is unsuitable because Britain is outside core EU endeavours such as the euro and the Schengen area. This argument works only if anyone from Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and most of central and eastern Europe is also ruled out. Now that would be odd.
The stronger case against Mr Blair is that he is too fixed in his Manichean world view, too careless of those who lack his moral certainties. We have probably had enough of "the right thing to do".
There is someone else. Angela Merkel qualifies on every count - on her instincts about Europe's relationships with the global powers, her grasp of the symmetry between interests and values, her skill in building coalitions and her natural political authority.
There is, I admit, a snag. Ms Merkel may decide that, even with the frustrations of a fractious coalition, she prefers to remain as German chancellor. She must, after all, be favourite to win next year's election. But if she declines the role for herself, Mrs Merkel's voice will be decisive in the choice of an alternative. As a good European, she has a duty to speak up for a somebody.
A new president, even one of substance, will struggle to forge a common European foreign policy. Collisions of historical experience, geography, instinct and, often, national interests are still significant. But if Europe wants a say in shaping a new world order it has to acquire the habit sometime. This is not the moment for faceless competence.
FT Syndication Service
Wanted: a president for Europe. Only nonentities need apply.
The other day the European reform treaty (you know, the one recast from the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters) jumped another hurdle. Gordon Brown's British government faced down calls from the Conservative opposition that it should hold a referendum. Mr Brown now seems pretty much assured of parliamentary ratification.
Barring accidents - eurosceptics of all national stripes are preparing a last stand in the Irish Republic when it holds a plebiscite -- the treaty should come into force by December.
That means the European Union (EU) must fill a new post -- president of the European Council. At present, the job is shuffled around existing EU leaders every six months. Unburdened by national office, the new president will be appointed for three years.
The role has not been properly defined. The only clear remits are to chair regular summits of EU leaders and to represent them at set-piece talks with foreign governments. The job description, though, is permissive: most probably, its boundaries will be set by the personality and authority of the first president.
The Union never makes these things easy. It has decided that the six-monthly rotating principle will remain for meetings, say, of finance or environment ministers. To add to the complexity, the status of its foreign policy tsar, at present the able Javier Solana, is also to be beefed up.
All that said, you would think that the Union would be looking for a big figure - someone commanding recognition and respect in Washington, Moscow, Delhi and Beijing. The new post, after all, is a recognition of a vital shift in Europe's ambition and focus. For its first half-century the Union's purpose was to promote peace and prosperity on its own continent. There is more to do, not least in the Balkans. The real challenge now, though, is to safeguard and promote European interests and values on the global stage. Self-evidently it needs a voice that will be heard by the great powers.
Did I say self-evidently? Not a bit of it, retort the eurocrats. Tony Blair, they scoff, should stick to the lucrative lecture circuit. The names being whispered in Brussels are those of politicians that even most Europeans have never heard of.
The appointment of someone who might actually walk tall on the international stage is seen as, well, too disturbing of the present equilibrium. How would such a president work alongside Mr Solana? Worse, he or she might not get on with José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission. To appoint someone of stature would risk turf wars.
The solution? Choose a political eunuch, someone unthreatening who will act in the manner of a disinterested bureaucrat: a fixer not a leader. Never mind if this figure goes unrecognised in the White House or the Great Hall of the People. Better to preserve the bureaucratic peace.
There are national politics in this mix. The purpose of the treaty change was to give the European Council - the Union's highest decision-making body - continuity and consistency of leadership. For that very reason many of the EU's smaller states never really wanted the new president. It was a Franco-British idea. Smaller states feared it would strengthen co-operation between governments at the expense of the EU institutions. There was a danger they would be marginalised. Germany, the most integrationist of the big states, expressed some sympathy.
That argument, though, has been fought and lost. At issue now is whether the Union wants to exercise political as well as economic clout. Looking at the names being floated as putative contenders, the answer seems to be a resounding no.
I am told that Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, sees himself as the front-runner. Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen has been mentioned since someone heard he is busy learning French. Another possibility is said to be Ireland's Bertie Ahern. Berlin is said to look kindly on Wolfgang Schüssel, the former Austrian prime minister. There are doubtless others.
These are bright people. Small countries can produce brilliant politicians. Putting aside a personal prejudice against EU institutions being forever run by Luxembourgers, I am not quarrelling with these candidates' competence. But it is no disrespect to say that none is exactly a household name. Their candidacies seem to speak instead to a deliberate paucity of ambition about Europe's global role. How seriously would they be taken by John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Imagine the reception from Dmitry Medvedev when Mr Juncker turned up in Moscow to protest against his decision to turn off the gas. How much weight would these candidates carry even in Europe?
At this point, the riposte tends to be, well, who else? Mr Blair is said to be disqualified because of the rupture over the Iraq war. The logic here is curious. The deepest divide over Iraq was between Britain and France. Nicolas Sarkozy - isn't he the French president? - is Mr Blair's cheerleader.
Ah, say champions of the faceless, Mr Blair is unsuitable because Britain is outside core EU endeavours such as the euro and the Schengen area. This argument works only if anyone from Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and most of central and eastern Europe is also ruled out. Now that would be odd.
The stronger case against Mr Blair is that he is too fixed in his Manichean world view, too careless of those who lack his moral certainties. We have probably had enough of "the right thing to do".
There is someone else. Angela Merkel qualifies on every count - on her instincts about Europe's relationships with the global powers, her grasp of the symmetry between interests and values, her skill in building coalitions and her natural political authority.
There is, I admit, a snag. Ms Merkel may decide that, even with the frustrations of a fractious coalition, she prefers to remain as German chancellor. She must, after all, be favourite to win next year's election. But if she declines the role for herself, Mrs Merkel's voice will be decisive in the choice of an alternative. As a good European, she has a duty to speak up for a somebody.
A new president, even one of substance, will struggle to forge a common European foreign policy. Collisions of historical experience, geography, instinct and, often, national interests are still significant. But if Europe wants a say in shaping a new world order it has to acquire the habit sometime. This is not the moment for faceless competence.
FT Syndication Service