The joke - updated

EU foreign minister Cathy Ashton spoke at the London School of Economics (LSE) yesterday, and while here speech (mp3) was fairly general, she ended it with a joke that caught my attention.

She told the joke like this:

The Secretary of State of the United States goes to the President and says:

"Mr President, finally an answer to the question that Henry Kissinger raised. Which is: 'We want to talk to Europe - whose number do we ring?' We have one phone number; let's ring the number and see what happens."

They ring the number and my [Catherine Ashton's; JF] voice mail is answering: "Welcome to Europe! For the French Position press 1, for the German position press 2..."

I had read or heard this one before, but since the moderator mentioned ex-MEP and Finnish foreign minister Alexander Stubb as the origin of the joke and Cathy Ashton wasn't aware of that, I did a little research to check that claim.

According to the New York Times, it was indeed Stubb who told the joke at a NATO reform conference in early March (although we don't know whether he invented it himself).

The version reported in the NYT goes like this:

"President Obama learns with interest that Europe now has a phone number. He’s told that, responding at last to Henry Kissinger’s famous jibe, the European Union has appointed a President named Herman Van Rompuy from Belgium and given him a 24/7 phone line.

So, Obama decides to try out Europe’s phone number. Henry will be tickled. But the president forgets about the time difference and gets an answering machine:

“Good Evening, you’ve reached the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy speaking. We are closed for tonight. Please select from the following options. Press one for the French view, two for the German view, three for the British view, four for the Polish view, five for the Italian view, six for the Romanian view. ...”

Obama hangs up in dismay."

While the punch line is the same in both versions, there is an interesting difference: In Cathy's version, she is called by the the Secretary of State and the President of the USA, in the version reported from Stubb it is European Council President van Rompuy.

The question is: Which version of the joke will prevail, the one with Ashton or the other with van Rompuy...?

Update: According to Alex Stubb, he is not the one who invented the joke.

Picture: © european_parliament / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Is anyone...

... defending EU foreign minister Ashton?

She is attacked from all sides, for weeks already. I only read negative press.

Where is Barroso in her defence? Where are the heads of state and government who selected her? Where are those who are not doing everything to get her External Action Service in place as soon as possible?

Nothing against critical coverage of the work of our politicians, but I have the impression that Ashton is not measured according to the standards of the rest of the pack.

So where are those great men when a colleague needs support?!

Should Ashton be in Haiti? (supplemented)

Jean Quatremer has covered the fact that EU foreign minister* Ashton has not been in Haiti and that EPP and the Liberals complained about that today.

I don't agree with these complaints, especially since her people have been working over the weekend as you can see on this special website on Haiti, which indicates the work that has continued over the weekend and the last days even though Ashton was in London.

But the main reason why I don't agree is the following:

The Haitian air space has been so busy lately that the most needed goods and materials could not be transported into the country. The situation of logistics in Haiti is still not solved. International leaders travelling to the country need a special security treatment and are thus slowing down the processes on the ground, which isn't helping the people.

And being there. Ashton could not do anything but have a look and talk into the cameras, maybe getting attention for a topic that has enough attention these days.

In my point of view, our foreign minister should focus on co-ordinating political and financial efforts in the EU from over here. She should make sure that member state and the EU institutions (Council and Commission in particular) organise themselves in a way that is most helpful for the population of Haiti.

I prefer the politics of doing things over the politics of pretending to do something, and flying to Haiti now would be exactly this kind of move. Ashton should go to Haiti in half a year, when most of the international focus might have moved away, honouring those who have worked hard for six month to help as much as they can.

By going there not now but later in the year, Ashton could make sure that European and international attention is kept on this country that will suffer from the earthquake for the next years and thus will need aid beyond the immediate crisis response we see at the moment.

So today, Ashton's place is in the EU and her task is to make sure we do our best to help the people of Haiti, and as soon as her presence on the ground is needed to support these efforts beyond a short-term outburst of help, she should fly there - but only then!

Supplement: The critical remarks on the lack of concrete reactions of the European Union, or at least their delay, by the Bruxelles 2 blog seem more convincing than the Quatremer's article.

*I have decided that, within this blog, I will call Ashton "foreign minister" (without capitalising the two words) as the same post was described in the initial Constitutional Treaty text that became the Lisbon Treaty later. The "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" is too long and just "High Representative" is not precise enough.

Hearing Ashton - my own remarks

It's always nice to listen to the opinions of others, but I still prefer unfiltered data over others' summaries.

After having followed the Ashton hearing through Twitter and blogs yesterday - see the list of quotes I assembled - I took the time in the evening to listen to her performance for 1h45 and I found her quite convincing.

Yes, her answers were largely diplomatic. Yes, you could feel that she is still inexperienced in that international affairs business. Yes, she didn't know all the files and all the details.

But the way she answered showed that she has invested herself in getting into the job as deeply as possible within the few weeks she had. She has visibly developed her opinions - sometimes hidden behind diplomatic speech - on several issues, she defended her future Commission colleagues by making clear how she sees the division of tasks, e.g. regarding Neighbourhood Policy or Development.

She could tell numbers of policemen in EU missions and cite from international documents. She answered most of the questions in a manner that took those who asked seriously - as seriously as you can take MEPs who don't understand the concept of asking one question in one minute.

Interestingly to note is that she spoke of Clinton as if they would get along quite well.

And between the lines you could well read that she wants to change things and that she sees problems she would like to tackle, for instance when she said that the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Mediterranean Union are not really part of one cohesive strategy (hope I recall that correctly).

I don't know exactly why, but the way she was addressing the different questions, both in content and in style, sounded positively different - I think its good to have someone like her in that position.

So despite the fact that not much news and substance came out of the hearing, Ashton still was able to convince me and I am now looking forward how she will be able to translate words into work.

Javier Solana: A short documentary

If you speak Spanish, I can recommend this short little TVE documentary about the political life of Javier Solana, the EU's "Foreign Minister" and Secretary General of the Council for the last decade, now replaced by Catherine Ashton and Pierre de Boissieu.

Will he now advise the upcoming Spanish Council Presidency in its foreign policy efforts...?

(via Oscar_rf on Twitter)

Limiting Ashton's power: The role of the rotating Council Presidency in foreign policy

With the nomination of van Rompuy and Ashton for the two major top posts, it looked pretty clear that the coordination of the EU's foreign policy will now be handed over to these two persons and their administrations.

Yet, as I have explained earlier, the rotating Council Presidency will not disappear but will chair all Council configurations except for the Foreign Affairs Council that will be chaired by Ashton.

However, I just discovered a freshly published Council document regulating the role of the rotating Council Presidency in the preparatory work of the Foreign Affairs Council. This document is definitely limiting the powers of Ashton and is restricting her freedom to work freely with her own diplomatic service:

The chairmanship of the preparatory bodies of the Foreign Affairs Council referred to in categories 1 to 4 in the table below shall be organised as follows:

1) Category 1 (preparatory bodies in the area of trade and development)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by the six-monthly Presidency.

2) Category 2 (geographic preparatory bodies)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative.

3) Category 3 (horizontal preparatory bodies, mainly CFSP)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative, except the following preparatory bodies, which shall be chaired by the six-monthly
Presidency:
- Working Party of Foreign Relations Counsellors (RELEX);
- Working Party on Terrorism (International Aspects) (COTER);
- Working Party on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (COCOP);
- Working Party on Consular Affairs (COCON);
- Working Party on Public International Law (COJUR); and
- Working Party on the Law of the Sea (COMAR).

4) Category 4 (ESDP related preparatory bodies)
The ESDP related preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative.

This means that although Ashton is going to chair every Foreign Affairs Council, the prepared documents coming into these meetings from the Working Parties won't have always been co-ordinated by the External Action Service but also by the rotating Council presidency.

And even where Ashton can chose the chairpersons of the working groups, she is limited by the member states (own highlights):

Where ... a preparatory body (PSC and relevant working parties) shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative, the responsibility for appointing the chair shall belong to the High Representative. These appointments shall be made on the basis of competence, while ensuring adequate geographical balance and transparency. The High Representative shall ensure that the person he or she intends to appoint as chairperson will enjoy the confidence of Member States.

Looking at this document one can see that the coherence in the European Union's foreign policy is unlikely to emerge, with the member states fighting to keep control over certain key areas, limiting the power(s) of the Foreign Minister.

I might be mistaken, but this looks like bringing further disorder into the European institutions that are already very hard to understand and control.

Supplement: Eurogeek has correctly pointed to the fact that this is not new but has already been discussed for some time, as shows this "L'Europe de la Défense" article from 31 October 2009.

Catherine Ashton: Foreign policy experience and public appearances over the last year

After Thursdays choice, questions have been asked about who is the new EU "Foreign Minister" Catherine "Cathy" Ashton, and I'd like to contribute by providing some background information available on the net.

When we look at the foreign policy experience Catherine Ashton gathered over the last year, one might look at the list of important non-EU leaders she met during that time (non-comprehensive):

• Celso Amorim, Brasilian Foreign Minister (source)
• Rohitha Bogollagama, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister (source)
• Simon Crean, Australian Trade Minister (source)
• Stockwell Day, Canadian Minister of International Trade (source)
• Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, South African Foreign Minister (source)
• Hage Geingob, Namibian Minister of Trade and Industry (source)
• Seretse Khama Ian Khama, President of Botswana (source)
• Kim Jong-hoon, South Korean Trade Minister (source)
• Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative (source)
• Pascal Lamy, WTO Director General (source)
• Elvira Nabiullina, Russian Minister for Economic Development (source)
• Anand Sharma, Indian Trade Minister (source)
• Yang Jiechi, Chinese Foreign Minister (source)

We could also look at some public appearances over the last year to see how she presents herself and trade policy (her portfolio in the Commission):

• Asthon's reaction at the press conference on Thursday
• Al Jazeera interview after her selection on Thursday
• BBC Hardtalk discussion on free trade in March: 24 minutes video
• Speech and discussions at the Carnegie Endowment: 1 hour video
• The hearing of Ashton at the European Parliament before her appointment as EU Commissioner: Audio (MP3)

I suppose that we will learn more and more about her over the months and especially of the the next years, but since "Foreign Minister" and future vice-president of the Commission Baroness Ashton will soon have to get European Parliament approval (as any other future Commissioner), I think it's already worth looking at her record from the past year now.

The information above just give some indications to the fact that she was indeed able to gather some relevant foreign policy experience over the last year and that she is able to be as outgoing as she can be diplomatic - let's see what else will be brought up.

Chasing Brussels Podcast Episode 008: Rompuy, Ashton & Gender Politics

We have been recording the eighth "Chasing Brussels Podcast" this evening.

I have been able to join again after long absence - and obviously it is focusing on the two major issues of the past week, the nomination of van Rompuy & Baroness Ashton and the Gender Balanced Commission campaign:

In this episode, three men sit around and talk about gender politics in the EU.

Joe Litobarski hosts this week, and he’s joined by Julien Frisch and Conor Slowey to talk about the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as European Council President and Baroness Catherine Ashton as High Representative for foreign affairs.

Is the appointment of Baroness Ashton a good thing for women in EU politics? Or will it hurt the chances of the Gender Balanced Commission campaign to push for a more equal Commission? All these things and more in this week’s podcast.

Chasing Brussels 08 – Gender Politics

If you have comments on the podcast, please comment directly on the page of this episode so that we have everything in one place - have fun!

PS.: For more on the mascot of "Chasing Brussels" go to "http://mattressy.blogspot.com!

Will the High Representative come into office against the Lisbon Treaty rules?

Next week, the European Council will meet informally over a lunch, and the heads of state and government will decide over the two remaining top EU post, the European Council President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - but it looks as if the latter will be coming into office against the rules.

Grahnlaw quotes a press release of the the Finnish government

The Swedish Presidency has announced that the High Representative will become a member of the Commission immediately after his/her appointment and the current Commissioner of his/her nationality will step down from the office.

This looks like the European Council wants to act against the Lisbon Treaty where it is clearly written in Article 17 para 7 (on the election of the Commission):

The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.

Since the Parliament's vote shall happen before the European Council formally nominates the Commission, I don't see how it is possible that the High Representative can enter into office right after her/his nomination next Thursday.

This is especially not possible since it would be the old Commission that was formed under the Nice Treaty into which the person would be "nominated". The Nice Treaty doesn't even foresee the High Representative in the future format, so how can s/he enter into the old Commission while already being nominated according to Lisbon rules?

Legally s/he will probably "just" be part of the old Commission. Practically this means that s/he can shape her/his office before the new college will start its work, s/he will be the de facto Foreign Minister in a weak caretaker Commission and s/he won't be confirmed by the EP as all other Commissioners before. The person will thus lack the legitimacy foreseen in the old Treaty for Commissioners as well as the legality of the Lisbon Treaty.

This sounds to me like the Heads of State and Governments are trying to create a fait accompli:

By illegitimately (almost illegally) putting the person into her/his office before a Parliament vote, the governments put pressure on the EP so that it can't vote against the Commission later this year when the de facto Foreign Minister has already shaped her/his office and when the governments could argue that it would be "damaging" to remove the person from office after several months.

Regarding the top EU posts under the Lisbon Treaty

For all those writing about speculations on the allocation of the top EU jobs under a possibly ratified Lisbon Treaty, I would like to point to the following declaration annexed to the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. to the final act of the Lisbon Intergovernmental Conference):

"6. Declaration on Article 15(5) and (6), Article 17(6) and (7) and Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union

In choosing the persons called upon to hold the offices of President of the European Council, President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States."

This pretty much rules out two persons of the same country/geographic region being among these three top posts - and also three males getting all the three jobs!

In my point of view, this also speaks against the re-election of Barroso before the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, because member states would clearly limit their options for the other two top jobs by taking an early decision on Mr. B.

Now the speculations may continue...!