Low ambition for the High Representative
THERE is one place, at least, where people really like Cathy Ashton: Benghazi. The EU’s foreign-policy supremo was in the eastern stronghold of the Libyan rebels on Sunday to pledge European support for Libyan democrats (see picture). For once, she had beaten European ministers to the punch (except for Poland’s Radek Sikorski, who was in Benghazi earlier this month). The EU’s circle of gold stars fluttered proudly over Benghazi’s courthouse, the nerve-centre of the revolution. Passers-by flashed V-for-victory signs. One shouted: “We love Europe.”
If only it were that easy at home. As Ms Ashton put it herself, when she briefed EU ministers in Brussels on Monday about her trip: “I am more popular in Benghazi than in Britain.” The British press, critical as it has been, is not her only problem. Officials and diplomats, both in and out of Brussels, have long privately criticised about Ms Ashton’s performance (a notable exception is America, which genuine thinks she is effective). But earlier this month Steven Vanackere, the Belgian foreign minister, broke cover to complain (in French) about the lack of co-ordination in European foreign policy in general, but also about the poor analysis and lack of organisation within her European External Action Service (EEAS).
Over a lunchtime discussion about the future of the EEAS on Monday, the “High Representative” had to contend with more criticism. Many of the comments were couched in diplomatic language about the need for all to act in a more coherent manner. (Mr Vanackere later said there had been “nothing personal” about his remarks, so much so that he was asked to represent Ms Ashton at the inauguration of the Ivory Coast’s new president, Alassane Ouattara). Others were openly mocking, notably the British Europe minister, David Liddington. He thought Ms Ashton’s request for a 5.8% budget increase next year, higher than the EU’s overall request for a 4.9% rise, was “somewhat ludicrous”.
At least Ms Ashton can take comfort from the fact that the attacks were themselves, somewhat incoherent. The Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and Austria had circulated two papers seeking, essentially, a more active and prominent role by the EEAS. They wanted more sharing of intelligence and political assessments, more on-the-ground co-ordination between the EU representatives and ambassadors from member-states and a greater role for the EEAS in consular matters, eg the evacuation of citizens from crisis-ridden countries. In response to this plea for the EU to do more, Mr Liddington was clear he wanted it to do less. He said the EEAS should focus on relations with big countries, and with neighbouring countries. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, had “given instructions to missions to watch out for competence creep”. By this he meant, for example, the need for British embassies to guard against the presumption of EU missions abroad in trying to speak on behalf of all 27 members.
He cast the policy in terms of a general Tory philosophical belief in small and limited government. But in many ways the British attitude is more akin to that of American neoconservatives, who dislike multi-lateral constraint (by the EU in the case of Britain and by the UN in the case of America). Smaller European states want a say in something approaching a single European foreign policy, and sharing of resources. But bigger members, such as Britain, jealously guard the diplomatic and intelligence networks they have built up, and want to maintain some freedom of action. “For us the EEAS is a megaphone,” says one small-country diplomat, “For the big states it is a limitation.”
If anything demonstrates the differences clearly it is the conduct of the war in Libya. France and Britain have led the way in military intervention. France last night announced that both countries would be deploying ship-borne attack helicopters to carry out more precise (but much riskier) attacks on Libyan ground forces and their supply chain. The EEAS, meanwhile, does the softer end of the business, with Ms Ashton speaking of helping with health and education. While Britain and France engage Libyan forces, Ms Ashton engages “civil society” in Benghazi. The big states fly combat missions; the EU flies the flag.
