President of the European Council and High Representative?

Peadar ó Broin

With the Lisbon Treaty set to enter into force on 1 December, the path is finally clear for the EU’s political leaders to begin nominating the two high-level posts designed to enhance the European Union’s visibility, relevance and policy coherence in international relations: a President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. 

President of the European Council 

The word “president” caused consternation during ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, as the word in English is often used to refer to a person invested with significant powers – the President of the United States, or the President of France, for example. A better comparison is with a president (or, more commonly, chairperson) of the board of directors of a company. This individual, elected by the board, is expected to achieve consensus among members of the board, preside over its meetings and act as spokesperson and the public face of the company. This person should not necessarily be the most powerful person in the company; indeed, they may not hold final decision-making power at all. The ‘received idea’ on the role of President of the European Council seems to be that (s)he will most likely be a conciliator, designed to forge consensus among the EU’s 27 national prime ministers and presidents on EU matters. Occasionally, the President will also represent the EU on the international stage – during EU summits with the USA, China or Brazil, for instance. On these occasions the President will probably act as a ceremonial figurehead – but that should not mean that (s)he should be lacking in ‘stage presence’. 

Despite the presence of some strong independent candidates, the two posts will most likely be divided between the two dominant political groupings in the European Union: the European People’s Party (EPP, an alliance of Christian democratic and centre-right parties) and the Party of European Socialists (PES, an alliance of social democratic and centre-left parties). The European Council is dominated by the EPP, so it would make sense that its first appointed president would come from that group. In the interests of balance (the PES is a close second to the EPP in terms of seats in the European Council), the post of High Representative would then go to a centre-left nominee.

But this is where the debate rages: should the first appointed president of the European Council be a strong, ‘presidential’ figure capable of speaking as an equal with foreign leaders such as President Barack Obama, or should the president be a spokesperson, a mediator, or a figurehead? Initially, two names rose to the fore: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the current Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker. Both candidates are believed to be interested in the job, but both have very different leadership qualities. Tony Blair is seen as a political heavyweight who would be a strong leader, but his candidacy is divisive, with many Europeans remembering that Mr. Blair supported the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. On the other hand, Prime Minister Juncker (who is also the chairman of the Eurogroup, an institution that brings together the finance ministers of EU countries that use the euro) is seen as not strong enough. President Sarkozy openly criticised Mr. Juncker for not leading a strong policy for the eurozone during the financial crisis, for instance. 

In fact, both candidates are likely to be eliminated given their prominence in the race (the EU rarely appoints self-declared candidates and initial front-runners rarely finish first) leaving the way open for a ‘third candidate’ to become President of the European Council, such as the current Dutch or Belgian prime ministers. While a Benelux document gave a job description that made the post of President sound more like a secretarial position, it is unlikely that the Member States will want to appoint a weak leader – although not someone capable of displacing them in terms of name-recognition.  

High Representative 

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be the EU’s foreign policy chief on the world stage. The Lisbon Treaty merges two current EU posts to create the new role of High Representative: that of Commissioner for External Relations (currently Benita Ferrero-Waldner) and the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (currently Javier Solana). This new “double-hatted” post (a confusing role where the High Representative is based in both the European Commission and the Council) is designed to boost the Union’s common foreign and security policy and crucially to provide the Union will a foreign policy chief who will act as the representative of the Union to the wider world. At present, the EU is represented by a number of actors, the total number of which can be confusing for non-EU countries. For instance, during the recent EU-US summit, the EU was represented by no less than five delegates: the Swedish Prime Minister and foreign minister, representing the rotating presidency; the current ambassador of the EU Member States on foreign policy issues; and the Commission President and the Commissioner for External Relations, representing the EU Commission. There is even the potential for more delegates to be involved if the eurozone is part of the issue being discussed. 

The idea for double-hatting the High Representative in both the Council and the European Commission is that at least two jobs would be rolled into one. But the Lisbon Treaty also creates a new post of President of the European Council, who may be involved in representing the EU at summits, as mentioned above. So there remains the potential for a plethora of individuals to be involved in the Union’s external relations, each representing different facets of its activities: the President of the European Council; the head of government/State and the foreign minister of the Member State whose country holds the rotating presidency; the High Representative; the President of the European Commission; and, where appropriate (such as in the G-20 talks), the President of the European Central Bank and/or the President of the Eurogroup. On trade issues, there is also the potential for the Commissioner for Trade to be involved; on humanitarian issues, the Commissioner for Development; and on enlargement issues, the Commissioner for Enlargement.  

So even with the Lisbon Treaty, the Union’s external action is not simplified in terms of the actors involved. The search for policy coherency and the problems that such a drive for simplification can generate can be seen in the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS), a network of EU ‘embassies’ across the globe. The attempt to give the Union’s external service a ‘common house’ has triggered low-key turf wars between the institutions. The High Representative will be responsible for proposing how the EEAS will be established – and it will be interesting to see whether (s)he is tempted more by the (diverging) Council or Commission sentiments on the issue, given the double-hatted nature of the role. 

Problems with the nominations process 

Nominations for the President and High Representative will be made during a special summit of national heads of government next week in Brussels. Although the Lisbon Treaty states that both posts need only a qualified majority in the European Council to be approved, EU leaders will no doubt wish to achieve consensus to avoid important representatives of the Union suffering from opposition to their candidacy from the outset. 

But leaving to one side the question of voting requirements, there appear to be two principal problems with the nominations process. 

1. Criteria
   

One of the problems is that the Lisbon Treaty is silent on the powers and responsibilities that the President will hold, which has led to questions as to precisely what criteria are to be applied in the nomination process. In fact, there are only six articles that relate refer directly to the President. 

Although EU leaders are keen to stress that the two-office holders will be more like ambassadors for EU policies and compromise-builders rather than strong political figures, there is at the same time a somewhat contradictory hope that such individuals will help boost the profile and make the EU a stronger actor on the world stage. Le Monde recently carried an article referring to this internal struggle between the Member States, seeking on the one hand to preserve their sovereignty in foreign policy, while on the other making the European Union a more relevant political actor in international affairs. 

2. Transparency
   

Although the Lisbon Treaty states very clearly that “[i]n order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible” (Article 15 TFEU), the process by which the President and the High Representative are to be appointed flies in complete contradiction of the principle of transparency. One journalist writes, “[t]he Member States are putting on display the worst side of Europe, this back-room scheming, bargaining in the corridors and market-place horse-trading. Citizens, simple spectators to a play written without them, are reduced to waiting for the black or white smoke that will arise from the Justus Lipsius building [name of the Council’s headquarters in Brussels]”. The New York Times was just as critical. Poland seems to be in favour of holding ‘job interviews’ for the nominees, but it appears that even if such ‘interviews’ take place, it will be behind closed doors.

As an Independent forum, the Institute does not express any opinions of its own. The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the author.