 |
Belgian Herman Van Rompuy [L] and British Catherine Ashton.
|
|
|
The European Union's nominations of its first president presidency and foreign affairs high commissioner begins a new phase in the organization's crystallization process.
November 19th 2009 will be marked in the history of the European Union as when Europe stepped closer than ever in its “unionization” process. Yet both nominated president and High Commissioner – Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, and British Catherine Ashton - are considered to be “highly effective but low-profiled” personas, as one of Europe's newspapers has described them, not merely as popular as former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for example, therefore raising the question: Why choosing them and what's next in Brussels' mind?
There are two main assessments that can be drawn from these nominations.
Firstly, both people are considered to be highly efficient in their job, doing it thoroughly, and perhaps most important, quietly. For example, as Belgium's Prime Minister, Van Rompuy succeeded in appeasing both Walloons and Flemish people, and calmed a permanent conflict among them. Van Rompuy did it without raising any quarrels and became, therefore, one of the only peer-experts in conflict resolution between national communities.
Catherine Ashton, on there other side of the channel, engaged since the beginning in problematic fields of education and labor, which are considered in Britain to be politically-suicidal issues for any public figure, and done it with a great success. Therefore, Brussels is signaling its will to create a strong and efficient institutionalization framework of both presidency and high commissioner offices. Having a too-popular figure in its first steps can harm the already-sensitive roles, leaving no room for those who wish to create a more organized methods of work and cooperation within the European Union institutions and member countries.
Secondly, because of its fragile context, the Lisbon treaty, nominating two remotely nationalistic figures, Brussels signals to both euro-skeptics and ultra-Europeans that the process should, and will, take a long time to become a rigid structure. Therefore these appointments will allow to all member-states to become more involved and increasingly influential in the institutionalization process, leaving no member “out of the loop”.
European Union leaders understood very well that some leading member states, fearing the possibility of harming their interests, especially with regard to foreign policy and defense, thus these nominations are enabling those countries to become more involved in the process, ensuring the fact that their voices would be heard.
In conclusion, these nominations for president and high commissioner for foreign affairs and security, can signal the intentions of the European Union to create an influential and potent super-structure, while simultaneously giving all member states a say in the process of creating the future faces of the continent. It might take a long time, yet longer processes can ensure that all would be accounted for and thought of. At the end of the process, Europe's structures might become closer, at least in its structure, to that of the United States of America.