A Federation Of Enemies
Both Europhiles and Euro-skeptics recognize that the European Union's cadres are selected for their limitations rather than for their abilities
by George Jonas
National Post
November 25, 2009
As Europe continues its evolution from a geographic expression (as Bismarck called it) to the federation of the United States of Europe, its first president and foreign minister have been appointed last week as much for what they lack as for what they bring to the table.
What do they lack? To say: "Qualifications" would be tempting but inaccurate. Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton are trained and experienced enough for their appointments. They lack stature and profile, but wouldn't be the first to acquire both on the job.
Lacking profile is their greatest asset, in fact. If ever two people could be described as having come up the middle, Belgium's 62-year-old Prime Minister, Van Rompuy, and the EU's trade commissioner, the Baroness Ashton, 53, would be them. Coming up the middle wasn't new to them, either. In their previous jobs they were already regarded as compromise, or at least caretaker, appointments. Van Rompuy's fierce, almost aggressive, blandness was expected to calm the chaos that passes for Belgian politics, while the Lady Ashton of Upholland, a Labour peer, was pinch-hitting in the trade commissioner's job because her predecessor, Peter Mandelson, was urgently required for what could be described as a man's job back in Britain: Saving Labour from itself.
The fact that two such innocuous personalities were chosen to lead the European Union underscores the basic dilemma of Europe as a federation that doesn't want to be one. Turning a geographic expression into a union is a daunting job, especially when unification isn't a demand by cohesive forces, only a kind of ruse de paix to keep divisive forces from perpetuating Europe as a battlefield among "nations of eternal war" (as Thomas Jefferson described them in a letter to James Madison).
The European Union may look like friends embracing, but it's really opponents in a clinch. The ideal candidate for an essentially hostile confederation of xenoliths -- countries that are in each other's arms because otherwise they'd be at each other's throats -- is someone short and dumpy, ready to make back-room deals, rather than someone mean and lean, eager to assume a presidential role. The last thing Europe needs is a leader coruscating with charisma or, heaven forbid, bringing vision to the job. Yes, Tony Blair might have "brought prestige and influence to a vaguely-defined and little-understood post," as the National Post editorial put it last week -- except this made him anything but "the ideal candidate" from the European perspective.
To understand the EU one must view it as a federation of enemies. Some European commentators, even though they're unhappy about it, see this clearly enough. "Traditionally the EU's top jobs have only been awarded to people who pose no risk of overshadowing national leaders," writes Carsten Volkery for Der Spiegel from Brussels. He notes that "Brussels has always been seen as a convenient place to park politicians who are over the hill or otherwise undesirable," and that "Rompuy and Ashton are by nature backbenchers, not alpha dogs -- and that is exactly the kind of politician who has always been shunted off to Europe."
Both Europhiles and Euro-skeptics recognize that the EU's cadres are selected for their limitations rather than for their abilities. They're balanced by geography, gender and political affiliation, the permissible range being between Brits and Bulgarians, men and women (no hermaphrodites, please) and democrats, social and Christian. A Christian democrat male like Van Rompuy, flanked by a social democrat female like Lady Ashton, neither known for making waves or, frankly, even much of an impression, are naturals for becoming the Union's first president and foreign minister. Pundits on both sides of the Euro-divide acknowledge this; only while Europhiles lament it, Euro-skeptics consider it par for the course.
Two hundred and twenty years have passed since George Washington took office. 2009 isn't 1789 and the United States of Europe isn't the United States of America. The first requirement of Europe's George Washington is to resemble America's George Washington as little as possible. It's a requirement Van Rompuy meets in spades.
What does this say about the future of the European Union? We started out with the Prussian Chancellor Prince Otto von Bismarck's observation, scribbled on the margin of a letter from Russia's foreign minister, Prince Aleksandr Gorchakov. "Whoever speaks of Europe is wrong. It is a geographical expression."
Bismarck's celebrated view has often been quoted, though this alone wouldn't validate it. The world has changed since the Iron Chancellor's 1876 jottings. But no matter how much it has changed, countries and commonwealths still need to be organized around some principles to be viable.
In the case of the EU, the organizing principle seems to be Europe's fear of itself. Europeans don't want to meet themselves in a dark alley. They've been there, done that and it wasn't pleasant. They'd sooner appoint each other's benign mediocrities to govern them -- at least four days out of seven.
The other three they'd rather be themselves.
Is self-distrust a sufficient organizing principle for a federation? If we live long enough we'll see. I'm a Euro-skeptic because I doubt it.