Saturday, 21 November 2009
Following long-standing debates and previsions, the EU leaders elected the first President of the European Council. Known as a low-profile politician on the international political arena and an unknown personality except by those from his own country, Belgium Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy was elected for the position of European Council Presidency. In addition, British center-leftist politician, who is also the commissioner responsible for external trade, Catherine Ashton was elected for the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a new post established by the Lisbon Treaty.
When it is considered in light of the great expectations of the newly established positions, the disreputableness characteristics of both recently elected politicians created an atmosphere of relative disappointment. In this regard, the co-President of the Greens Daniel Cohn Bendit argued that the EU was “sinking to a low”, The Guardian raised questions about “the pair's relative inexperience, and neither will be able to stand alongside the US, Russian or Chinese leaders as peers and equals.”
In brief, it not to wrong to say that the new representatives of the EU, who were elected with aminimalist understanding, do not have the capability of creating excitement for the future of European integration. Yet, these elections could have been transformed into an opportunity for the EU in terms of the legal status of the Union andits symbolic stature in world politics as well.
The Positions of the EU Presidency and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty (Article 15), members of the European Council elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. The basic reasons for creating a permanent Presidency within the EU’s institutional system are to tackle the problem of “cacophony” in the enlarged EU, to increase representative capability in international affairs and to be able to react effectively and clearly when unexpected developments occur in the world political scene.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, the President of the European Council:
- shall chair it and drive forward its work;
- shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
- shallendeavor to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
- shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.
As a second new position, the Lisbon Treaty envisages a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. According to the Treaty, the High Representative presides over the Foreign Affairs Council and is also one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. The High Representative, in this sense, provides an integrity and continuity on the Union’s Common Foreign and Security policy.
In this regard, it is expected that the new positions would contribute positively to the aims of the “single-voice” EU and the visibility of the Union. However, the newly elected representatives seem to undermine the basis of these objectives and arouse questions in the minds of observers. This point gains gravity particularly when one analyses the issue from Turkey’s perspective.
The Possible Impacts for Turkey-EU Relations
The Presidency and High Representative elections showed once again that if France and Germany act in accordance with each other, it is quite difficult to make a decision contrary to their position. Germany and France try to shape the Union in line with their own interests and priorities. For the sake of that purpose, Sarkozy and Merkel prevented the election of a representative who could eclipse them and manage to take personal initiatives in the international arena on behalf of the Union. The Belgium Prime Minister, in that sense, is the most proper one for the EU Presidency. Moreover, Rompuy’s ideas about Turkey’s EU membership are quite similar to those of Merkel and Sarkozy. While he was the member of the opposition party in 2004, he declared his ideas quite strikingly. In his speech, he exactly said the following sentences:
“Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe. An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion, as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey”
In fact, Merkel and Sarkozy claim the same things in regard to Turkey. They think that “privileged partnership” is the ideal form for Turkey-EU relations. For example, the French President said once upon a time that “… I am not in favor of Turkey’s membership to the EU. Turkey belongs to Asia Minor. Turkey is a great civilization. Yet, it is not European.” So, one can speak about the perfect match between the ideas of Sarkozy and Belgium Prime Minister.
Three Observations regarding the Elections: a Turkish Perspective
At this point, it would be apt to touch upon three important points regarding the future of the European integration and the destiny of Turkey-EU relations.
First of all, in the current conjuncture, the EU relies on the Franco-German axis. Therefore, it is almost impossible to make a decision contrary to these two. However, there occurs a problem regarding the newcomers’ integration to the EU’s governance mechanism. When the future of the EU integrationis taken into consideration it becomes a more serious concern.
Secondly, the EU successfully implemented the ‘consensus culture’ with the recent elections. In this regard, it is concentrated on the minimalistsolutions that serve each part’s satisfaction. While the EU’s President is a Christian Democrat, the High Representative is from the Labor Party. Since this is the result, the EU could not form a coherent cadre that would prevent raising contradicting statements from the EU in the foreign affairs. This carries the tension to the agenda of the EU regarding further differentiation on understanding of the enlargement and the EU’s future vision in the following terms. Arguably, this tension would occur mostly in the case of Turkey’s membership bid.
The third Conclusion can be drawn regarding the future of the EU bureaucracy: With the recent elections there occurred a considerable amount of risk to add new onus to the EU’s bureaucratic machinery because although the newly elected President has proved his ability to reach consensus between the deeply divided sides of his own country, he does not seem so promising regarding the future vision of the EU. On the contrary, his technocratic and bureaucratic character may transform the Presidency into “an institution among the ordinary institutions” in the EU.
All in all, the recent elections to the newly created posts did not create a promising atmosphere for the future of the EU. In the period that the world faces, with sea changes and a new order in the making, it was expected for the EU to select a higher profile and more open minded President in order to help transform the EU from a cultural essentialist character to a more cosmopolitan and visionary entity.
Translated by Muzaffer Vatansever, USAK Centre for EU Studies
Edited by Kaitlin MacKenzie
The French National Identity Debate: Whither Europe?
