EU at 50

Only a week after the resounding Irish ‘No’, EU leaders faced the difficult task of formulating a response at a weekend summit that was slated to address the rather mundane issues of governing an almost unwieldy Union of 27.

Instead, EU heads of state and government faced yet another “crisis,” likened by some to the “abyss” created by the negative votes on the Lisbon Treaty’s predecessor, the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty. After the referenda in France and the Netherlands, the Union’s response was to enter a “period of reflection”. The cumbersome construction of governance, which the Nice Treaty dictates doesn’t exactly allow for quick reaction, nor was it prudent at the time. The rejection of the Constitutional Treaty underlined a legitimacy problem key to the entire European project: What is it all for? Citizens in two of the Union’s founding states had lost sight of the extent to which the EU benefitted their lives. Thus, leaders agreed to pare the Constitution down to its basics and focus largely on questions of governance, starting with the functioning of a 27+ - member, “ever closer Union”, not the creation of a federal super-state feared by many.

Institutional reform is a difficult platform to campaign on. My respect and admiration goes out to the Irish ‘Yes’ campaigners. Whether or not the Lisbon Reform Treaty was just not ’sexy’ enough to rally voter support, or whether it was too difficult to understand, the campaign was badly run or the ‘No’ side just had the winning arguments will be hard to determine, though analysts are already hard at work.

But what of the EU response on the weekend? Or should I say: What response? To quote the EU Council Conclusions:

“The European Council noted (emphasis added is my own) the outcome of the referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty and took stock (aha!) of the situation on the basis of an initial assessment provided by the Taoiseach Brian Cowen.

The European Council agreed that more time was needed to analyse the situation. It noted that the Irish government will actively consult, both internally and with the other Member States, in order to suggest a common way forward.”

Impressive. The Council takes note - now there’s a European Union I can throw my weight behind. The European Policy Centre is far more diplomatic, when it says “In sum, the language is very cautious and no specific commitment or recommendation is made.” (The EPC also has an excellent look into the political and institutional problems ahead)

True, there is no Plan B. The Union’s true response: Lisbon or bust. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the ‘mother’ of the Lisbon Reform Treaty negotiations and the incoming President of the European Union, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated this point at the Summit. Contrary to the 2003 crisis, most Member States (save the Czech Republic, whose situation is a little more tricky) are forging ahead with ratification. The implicit - and so far only legal alternative - goal could be to push Ireland into a second vote, once exceptions (on neutrality, an Irish Commissioner, etc.) have been negotiated.

At this point no other Member State is leaning toward untying a package so precariously wrapped up during the German EU Presidency. Negotiating exceptions to certain rules to accomodate the Irish, however, might reopen Pandora’s box over time. The Czech government has its issues with the Treaty and is in the midst of an appeal to the country’s Constitutional Court with respect to its compatibility. The compromise achieved with Poland was tricky. At least Italy’s Berlusconi, the new-old Prime Minister is pushing ahead with ratification in his country, lest he throw a wrench in the process simply to make a political statement.

Ireland’s ‘No’ will not ’shut down’ the Union - it will continue to do business and legislate as usual. However, aside from a possible wave of ‘exceptionalism’ noted above, the obvious delay of the entire ratification process does have implications for enlargement (the Nice Treaty provisions weren’t conceptualized for a Union beyond 27 and Croatia would be the first to feel the effects), immigration policy (the Lisbon Treaty alters the legal basis of most legislation concerning justice and home affairs) and will likely alter the tone of the election campaign for the European Parliament in 2009.

In light of this ‘No’ the European Union as a whole cannot afford to be seen as simply ‘taking stock’ and ‘noting’ current developments. Of course solutions take time to formulate, but Europe’s citizens are already confused (not least the Irish - 22% of the naysayers felt they knew too little about the Treaty) about what it all means. For all the work the Commission has poured into its ‘Plan D’ to enhance the legitimacy of the Union, we now need a functional way forward. One can thus only hope that ratification continues and any exceptions are negotiated swiftly and stable, tenable results are achieved. Only if the Council is seen to be addressing the situation adequately is there truly hope for an “ever closer Union.”

When US President George W. Bush made what will likely be his last visit to Europe for the EU-US Summit two weeks ago, Iran was one of the only points both sides could still sink their teeth into. While Europe and the US have had diametrically opposed methods of dealing with the country, with the EU pushing for diplomatic discourse and the US teetering on the brink of military action, the European Union enhanced its foreign policy clout earlier in the week by stepping up sanctions against Iran.

The sanctions include a freeze on the assets of one of the country’s largest banks suspected to be a major sources of the funding for Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. In addition, the 27-member bloc announced it would curtail deny access to its territory to “experts” associated with the country’s suspected nuclear program and restrict financial flows to Iranian companies linked to activities that could support the development of a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Just as a woman bows out of the race for the most powerful political office in the world, calls for a female leadership role in the European Union are swelling. Launched by Danish Socialist MEP, Christel Schaldemose, the ‘Females in Front’ initiative is looking to fill one of the key posts in the 27-member Union with a well-known woman. In 2009, the Heads of State and Government will be looking to nominate candidates for the leadership positions in the Union: President of the EU Council of Ministers, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Until now, only one of these posts has ever been held by a woman: Simone Weil and Nicole Fontaine served as Presidents of the European Parliament, one in the late seventies and the other in the late nineties.

Schaldemose is looking for 1 million signatories to her petition for it to have enough clout to influence nominations. Naturally, German chancellor Angela Merkel seems to be the obvious choice for one of these top posts, though in light of the weakness of her ruling coalition partner, the Social Democrats, Ms. Merkel would be a fool to drop out of national policy making in 2009 to take over a leadership role in Europe when so much remains to be accomplished at home.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, EU Commissioner Margot Wallström has put forth a number of female candidates aside from Ms. Merkel: Tarja Halonen, president of Finland, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, president of Latvia 1999-2007, Mary Robinson, president of Ireland 1990-97, Dora Bakoyannis, foreign minister of Greece, Ursula Plassnik, foreign minister of Austria, Margaret Beckett, former British foreign secretary, Emma Bonino, former Italian minister for trade and European Commissioner.

Arguably, though none of the posts in question are truly democratically representative offices, nominating at least one woman would serve as a better reflection of the Union’s actual population (more than half of it are female) - the Spanish cabinet, which includes more women than men is a case in point.

Women - not least Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher - have proven they can be just as tenacious and ambitious as their male counterparts, providing it is the job they want. So perhaps Europe has to ask itself a different question altogether - and in part it is already doing it through the Lisbon Treaty: How can we make Europe’s top jobs just as attractive as an American Presidency or a prime ministerial post. The answer: Add some real power to the mix, and you’ll have top candidates of both genders vying for the opportunity.

The Foreign Policy Association and the European Courier spoke with Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations, about the role of small countries at the UN, the International Criminal Court and reform at the United Nations. Transcript available at the European Courier.

April 11, 2008

The Foreign Policy Association and the European Courier spoke with the Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United Nations, Ambassador Fernando Valenzuela of Spain, about issues impacting the EU at the UN.  Watch the video below or read the transcript here.

Europeans took to the polls over the weekend, with perhaps unsurprising results: Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Zapatero was reelected against a bland looking Mariano Rajoy, despite an economic crisis that still has to fully play out and France’s governing UMP was given a shake-up in communal elections, serving as a warning sign that the electorate is unhappy with the ‘Hyper-President’s’ globe-trotting, star-marrying, self-aggrandizing ways.

 What will this change for EU policy making? Not much. In fact: probably nothing. The Zapatero government is, as all post-Franco Spanish governments very pro-European. Difficulties arise over fisheries policies and minority issues, among other things, but that is ‘normal’ EU business. What the Economist points out, however, is that Zapatero’s reelection could mean bad news for a prime minister who is already out of office: Tony Blair.

Where’s the connection, you (rightly) ask? Well, according to the Economist’s Europe blog, officials in the Council of Ministers are ruminating whether this vote means Mr. Blair’s chances of becoming the Union’s first standing president have fallen back to, well, nil. Because of their similarity in leadership style and their same political family, both men could come up against each other, but with Blair’s anti-European (think Iraq war) stance, Zapatero could win out. The air in Brussels is rife with speculation on the entire presidency issue and of course nothing is set and done, as the Lisbon Reform Treaty is still in the ratification process, but these rumors will be interesting to watch. These two might not be so friendly with each other as the months drag on.