Sun, Apr 13, 2008 page9

• Choosing ‘Mr Europe’ isn’t as easy as it looks

  The uncertainty surrounding the naming of the leader of Europe is raising questions about the quite undemocratic process

  • By Giles Merritt
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The US’ riveting presidential election campaign may be garnering all the headlines, but a leadership struggle is also underway in Europe. Right now, all eyes are on the undeclared frontrunners to become the first appointed president of the European Council.

  Nobody — not even people closely involved in the process — really knows how the EU’s leaders are chosen. There are no formal rules, much less elections; somehow, names just surface in the media to become part of the EU’s mysterious internal bargaining system.

  In fact, there are five jobs up for grabs, so a complex but secretive discussion is being conducted between Europe’s chancelleries over who might do what without disturbing the delicate balances between political families or between large and small states.

  At the heart of this process is the even touchier issue of whether the people who will take charge of the EU’s main institutions should be strong leaders. In principle, everyone wants heavy-hitters; in practice, many national leaders resist the idea of a more independent and assertive team in Brussels.

  The dilemma is neatly summed-up by the two clear candidates for the top job as “Mr Europe.” On the one hand, there’s the safe pair of hands personified by veteran Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who knows the ins and outs of the EU’s political machinery and chairs the euro zone’s ministerial set-up. He won’t make waves, but he won’t make headlines either.

  Then there’s former British prime minister Tony Blair. World famous but controversial, Blair is capable of rallying public opinion and giving the European project the high profile that the EU craves. But he’s also liable to turn a 30-month ceremonial post as the EU’s figurehead into one with much more political clout than its 27 national leaders might like.

  OTHERS

  The other four posts will probably be decided as part of a package deal, owing to the need to achieve some sort of balance. First, there’s the question of whether the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, a former Portuguese prime minister, should get another five-year term. His early promise to be the EU executive body’s new broom has turned into a steady-as-she-goes captaincy, and there’s the added question of whether his re-appointment might turn the job into a standard 10-year post for his successors, regardless of their abilities.

  The choice for No. 3 job — the foreign policy supremo who will have extra resources and powers to build on the position created by Javier Solana — looks more straightforward. Solana, the soft-spoken Spaniard who was previously NATO secretary-general, looks like the odds-on favorite to take the new job for a few months before handing it over to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who gained international stature in the Balkans in the 1990s.

  But nothing is certain. If Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen were to succeed as a compromise candidate between Juncker and Blair, as is widely suggested, the presence of two center-right Scandinavians would present a problem. The remaining two posts, president of the European Parliament and the “Mr Euro” job currently held by Juncker, will also have to contribute to overall balance and reflect the outcome of the European Parliament elections in the middle of next year.

  UNCERTAINTY

  The parliament is a further wildcard in this wholly undemocratic and unpredictable process. Under the Reform Treaty — the look-alike successor to the controversial European constitution that creates the post of EU president — the parliament’s 785 members will also have their say. In years past, only governments could torpedo candidates for Europe’s top jobs, but now the parliament also will be able to reject them. It’s not at all clear which will have the greater power to decide the outcome.

  This uncertainty is beginning to focus attention on the fundamental question of whether the EU can continue to choose its leaders in such a strange and furtive manner. When the EU was smaller and more modest, inter-governmental horse-trading seemed acceptable, not least because national politicians could downplay the importance of “Europe.”

  Today, with the EU eager to play a forceful role on the world stage, a move toward a more open system appears to be inevitable. The EU’s interlocutors in Washington, Beijing and elsewhere already make it plain that national leaders claiming to speak for Europe lack credibility, as do EU leaders who so evidently have no convincing political mandate.

  Two clearly defined schools of thought are emerging. There are those who argue that these are sensitive and complicated issues beyond most voters’ understanding and that more democracy would result in either populism or embarrassingly widespread abstentions. Others believe the EU cannot continue being run along the same lines as in Beijing or even Pyongyang. It’s an issue that will confront any new team chosen by the old methods.

  Giles Merritt is secretary-general of the Brussels-based think tank Friends of Europe and editor of the policy journal Europe’s World.

  Copyright: Project Syndicate/Europe’s World
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Typhoon Usagi expected to brush past Taiwan

  • 2

    Land warning issued for Typhoon Usagi

  • 3

    First new MRT line train arrives

  • 4

    China blocks news after deadly attack which killed 35

  • 5

    Chinese semiconductor shares rise as TSMC halts advanced chip shipments