The European Council

The Arab Spring has not been an occasion to be proud of Europe. While the democratic movements gained momentum, the EU was slow in breaking the opportunistic bonds it had tied with the autocratic leaders. One institution performed especially well as a Flop and probably hasn't got a sufficient bashing from the press: the European Council.

Shortly after demonstrations and unrest began in Tunisia, Nicolas Sarkozy sent us his application as a Flop European by backing then-still president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, offering support and know-how to Tunisia's security forces. Berlusconi in turn, E&M's Flop over and over again, was quick in defending the Libyan state-terrorist as a "wise men" whom he doesn't wish to disturb. Amidst all this, Catherine Ashton, the EU's high-representative and head of the recently set up External Action Service, was under fire from the media for reacting too slowly and too timidly.

It's true that unlike her predecessor Javier Solana ,"Cathy" lacks political charisma and is not a member of the international security policy family, her home was UK's domestic politics. But it's not all her fault: her base, the External Action Service, is not a powerful institution and has so far mainly been a battleground for the Commission and the Council brawling over who gets which positions.

The place that is central to many failures is the group of the EU's heads of states and governments, the European Council. When it comes to processes of democratisation in neighbouring regions or continents, Europe should speak a message of democracy with one voice. The Council could have been the place to do so. It did not, however. Instead, it let Ashton do the talking without sufficiently backing her. There are four main problems with the Council that led to many of Ashton's problems.

The problem of one voice

First, the Council fails to speak with one voice. Of course, every national politician wants to put him- or herself in front of the camera and is expected to do so anyway. However, the Council must be able to find a common position quickly and communicate it, otherwise the EU lacks presence at home and abroad. However, now even the UN Security Council was quicker than the EU to embrace sanctions. That is despite the fact that some measures, like freezing an autocrat's funds, would have been easy to implement.

The problem of one message

The Council not only failed to speak in one voice, it also did not speak one message of demoracy. Indeed, there are conflicting interests within the EU that have to do with geography: Finland does not have an issue with refugees from Africa and hence was first to suggest sanctions against Libya. The Mediterranean neighbours hesitated to agree, fearing Gadaffi might retaliate. The Council relied on the wrong partners too long and too much.

In the light of democratisation the Council should have sent out a message in support of democracy instead of fearing that the mistakes they made in the past might backfire on them tomorrow. Finding a European message in such crucial moments is a precondition for any role the EU wants to play in diplomacy.

The problem of principles and credibility

This year the EU found itself on the wrong side of history. France maintained close economic relationships with Tunisia's leading clan. The EU paid around €740m to Egypt during the last five years in neighbourhood support. However, as one accusation from the Parliament goes, it is not clear where exactly Europe puts its money.

There were more political failures. In 2005 and 2010 the EU could have spoken up against the falsified Egyptian election results or could have threatened to withdraw some of the funds. It did not. However, in 2006 when Hamas came to power in Palestine in a fair election, the EU withdrew support.

The point is certainly not that the EU should have supported Hamas. The point is that the EU lost its credibility in the eyes of its neighbours by putting opportunism over democratic principles. This way the EU showed that it was merely going along with the US's strategy. Instead the EU needs to have a clear and decisive system of conditionality of funds.

Another example of the strategy of opportunism over principles is the EU's eastern partnerships with countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. These countries have repressive regimes with an atrocious record of human-rights violations; but, alas, they also have nice resources like oil and gas.

Photo: European Council

Before the meeting of the European Council on February 4th.

The problem of policy coherency and neglect

Finally, for more than ten years, the EU failed to implement an effective policy-package with its southern neighbours. The framework that especially focusses on the south has been the Barcelona process, which started in 1995 and turned into Union for Mediterranean (UfM) in 2008. The process was ineffective and the UfM looks anaemic at best, especially when compared with its pompous introduction by Sarkozy.

The coherency of development and cooperation schemes is one thing. Letting North Africa's autocracies deal with the problem of migration from Africa is another. In the interests of Spain, Italy, and Greece, the European Council dispensed with the problem by paying Gadaffi to block the migrants in Libya and cooperate with the EU border agency by blocking the boats on the sea. The Council was aware that this was not a solution that would last forever, but it failed to prepare a strategy that did not rely on Gadaffi. This connects to the issue of EU asylum policy, where harmonisation is stuck in a political logjam in Brussels.

The European Council must change

The European Council is the most powerful institution in the EU and it failed to live up to the possibilities and responsibilities that it has for the EU and for Europe in this role. During the Arab Spring the Council's opportunism in relying too strongly on the wrong partners backfired. This led to its problems today: it has been too slow to lead, and it came up with actions in the spirit of democracy too late. It seems that the body that drives European Integration and European democratisation might also be an obstacle to those very goals.

Cover illustration: Laura Hempel