Tweet
THE ASHTON-JUPPE GATE - WHY IS FRANCE OUT OF LINE?
Foreign Policy Blogs Network
March 15, 2012 Thursday 12:25 PM EST
These last several weeks Alain Juppe, French Foreign Minister, has
been outspoken against the incompetence of the EU High Representative
Catherine Ashton and the European External Action Service (EEAS). The
latest attack was a letter sent by Juppe to Ashton on March 9th,
wherein the French minister lectured Ashton on the shortfalls of the
EEAS. According to Juppe's representatives, the letter was part of a
natural exercise of constructive criticism fostering debate between
the EEAS and the French ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Despite the fact that Ashton has not emerged as the most polish
diplomat, it is still quite inappropriate to see France attacking her
this way. Back in 2009 Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, made a
choice to assure the DG Internal Market of the European Commission to
Michel Barnier instead of seeking for the head of the EEAS. France is
far from being a model of EU guardianship when it comes to foreign
policy, as recently illustrated with the Arab Spring and the NATO
mission in Libya. In both cases, France tried to maximize its interests
at the expense of the EEAS and ultimately the Union.
Francois Guillot/AFP/Getty Images
Following the appointments of Ms. Ashton, Mr. Van Rompuy, and Mr.
Barnier, Nicolas Sarkozy declared that securing DG Internal Market
was a victory for France. Sarkozy was quoted by Le Monde claiming
that "the agreement on the role of Michel Barnier was sealed between
Barroso and I [Sarkozy] three days ago. It's exceptional for France.
And the second victory is that our friends, the Romanians, have
agriculture." Such statement was particularly inappropriate for
two reasons: first, in theory, a Commissioner is accountable to the
Union and not to his/her country; second, the statement was directly
addressed to the British. No statements were made about the importance
of the EEAS.
In recent years, Mr. Juppe has emerged as an vocal politician
considering his criticisms on several key decisions made by the ruling
party of
President Sarkozy. For example, he was critical of the bill
criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide considering the
consequence it could have on the relations with Turkey; second, he
took note of the election of Vladimir Putin last Sunday, and never
congratulated Putin; last, he now criticizes openly Ashton in his
letter of March 9th.
Despite the criticism, Juppe called for the EEAS to become a stronger
international actor as well as increase the coherence and efficiency
of the external actions of the EU. He also made several propositions:
first, the EEAS must be more proactive in advancing the questions of
human rights in countries like Syria and Iran; second, reinforcing
the EU capacities in sharing refueling airplanes as proven by the
shortfalls during the Libyan mission; third, the EEAS needs to
improve its competencies on core international questions such as
non-proliferation, fight against terrorism, coherence in international
fora.
Erkki Tuomioja, head of the Finish diplomacy, declared that Ashton
has been trying her best but remains dependent on the willingness of
the EU Member States, and especially the Big Three - Britain, France,
and Germany. Such statement is not surprising coming from a smaller EU
Member State as they have progressively become second-class citizens
on foreign policy questions. This gap between the Big Three and the
rest of the Union is increasingly hurting the unity of the Union on
key international questions.
The claim that the EEAS has turned out as a disappointment is quite
valid considering its large budget and staff. The EU could have
been much more active in the Arab Spring - Tunisia and Egypt - and
failed to do so. Libya was really the opportunity to redeem the EEAS
and launched a CSDP mission. Ashton failed to assure a role to the
EU. Now with Syria, one could expect nothing coming from the EEAS
beside words. Despite the recent failures of the EEAS, for Juppe to
lecture Ashton on her missteps, mistakes, and the EEAS shortcomings is
an absolute aberration. France should take a clear look at its latest
foreign policy decisions and see how many times since 2009 and before
it has tried to empower the EEAS instead of France's interests.
Nicolas Sarkozy has proven to be a strategic world leader positioning
France as a world power at the expense of the EU, as proven by the
Georgia and Libyan crises among others. Ultimately, EU Member States
get what they choose for. Maybe it should be time to substitute the
traditional question of, how much has the EEAS done for France?,
by another one, how much has France done for the EEAS?
Foreign Policy Blogs Network
March 15, 2012 Thursday 12:25 PM EST
These last several weeks Alain Juppe, French Foreign Minister, has
been outspoken against the incompetence of the EU High Representative
Catherine Ashton and the European External Action Service (EEAS). The
latest attack was a letter sent by Juppe to Ashton on March 9th,
wherein the French minister lectured Ashton on the shortfalls of the
EEAS. According to Juppe's representatives, the letter was part of a
natural exercise of constructive criticism fostering debate between
the EEAS and the French ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Despite the fact that Ashton has not emerged as the most polish
diplomat, it is still quite inappropriate to see France attacking her
this way. Back in 2009 Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, made a
choice to assure the DG Internal Market of the European Commission to
Michel Barnier instead of seeking for the head of the EEAS. France is
far from being a model of EU guardianship when it comes to foreign
policy, as recently illustrated with the Arab Spring and the NATO
mission in Libya. In both cases, France tried to maximize its interests
at the expense of the EEAS and ultimately the Union.
Francois Guillot/AFP/Getty Images
Following the appointments of Ms. Ashton, Mr. Van Rompuy, and Mr.
Barnier, Nicolas Sarkozy declared that securing DG Internal Market
was a victory for France. Sarkozy was quoted by Le Monde claiming
that "the agreement on the role of Michel Barnier was sealed between
Barroso and I [Sarkozy] three days ago. It's exceptional for France.
And the second victory is that our friends, the Romanians, have
agriculture." Such statement was particularly inappropriate for
two reasons: first, in theory, a Commissioner is accountable to the
Union and not to his/her country; second, the statement was directly
addressed to the British. No statements were made about the importance
of the EEAS.
In recent years, Mr. Juppe has emerged as an vocal politician
considering his criticisms on several key decisions made by the ruling
party of
President Sarkozy. For example, he was critical of the bill
criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide considering the
consequence it could have on the relations with Turkey; second, he
took note of the election of Vladimir Putin last Sunday, and never
congratulated Putin; last, he now criticizes openly Ashton in his
letter of March 9th.
Despite the criticism, Juppe called for the EEAS to become a stronger
international actor as well as increase the coherence and efficiency
of the external actions of the EU. He also made several propositions:
first, the EEAS must be more proactive in advancing the questions of
human rights in countries like Syria and Iran; second, reinforcing
the EU capacities in sharing refueling airplanes as proven by the
shortfalls during the Libyan mission; third, the EEAS needs to
improve its competencies on core international questions such as
non-proliferation, fight against terrorism, coherence in international
fora.
Erkki Tuomioja, head of the Finish diplomacy, declared that Ashton
has been trying her best but remains dependent on the willingness of
the EU Member States, and especially the Big Three - Britain, France,
and Germany. Such statement is not surprising coming from a smaller EU
Member State as they have progressively become second-class citizens
on foreign policy questions. This gap between the Big Three and the
rest of the Union is increasingly hurting the unity of the Union on
key international questions.
The claim that the EEAS has turned out as a disappointment is quite
valid considering its large budget and staff. The EU could have
been much more active in the Arab Spring - Tunisia and Egypt - and
failed to do so. Libya was really the opportunity to redeem the EEAS
and launched a CSDP mission. Ashton failed to assure a role to the
EU. Now with Syria, one could expect nothing coming from the EEAS
beside words. Despite the recent failures of the EEAS, for Juppe to
lecture Ashton on her missteps, mistakes, and the EEAS shortcomings is
an absolute aberration. France should take a clear look at its latest
foreign policy decisions and see how many times since 2009 and before
it has tried to empower the EEAS instead of France's interests.
Nicolas Sarkozy has proven to be a strategic world leader positioning
France as a world power at the expense of the EU, as proven by the
Georgia and Libyan crises among others. Ultimately, EU Member States
get what they choose for. Maybe it should be time to substitute the
traditional question of, how much has the EEAS done for France?,
by another one, how much has France done for the EEAS?