Thursday, January 5, 2012

Not her fault

Baroness Ashton was put into the position of the High Panjandrum for the Common Foreign Policy because she was seen to be incompetent enough not to cause any trouble to anybody. She has fulfilled that role admirably while presiding over a huge increase in the personnel of the European External Action Service (EEAS), which has existed for some time but became a separate official body under the Lisbon Treaty and has since grown enormously with 140 EU delegations in various countries.

It seems that the lady can't win. She has been criticized "in a confidential discussion paper signed by the 12 foreign ministers and sent to Ashton last month", to which she has replied in a report on the first year of her ever increasing empire:
Ashton acknowledges problems in the division of roles between the EEAS, launched one year ago this week, and the European Commission. She concedes that there have been serious transitional and structural problems with the EU's 140 delegations abroad. She notes the need to improve policy formulation and delivery, but provides no details as to how she will do so.
Whether her self-defence will satisfy her critics remains to be seen. My suspicion is no and they will have to make a decision on whether they will just put up with expensive incompetence or get somebody who will spend as much money if not more (not that the colleagues care about that) and become rather a nuisance to the various foreign ministers. This is quite interesting, however:
The foreign ministers – including Alain JuppĂ© of France, Guido Westerwelle of Germany, Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland and Carl Bildt of Sweden – said they had “a major interest in a strong and efficient EEAS” and wanted “to help it develop its full potential”. William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, did not endorse the paper and its implicit criticism of Ashton.
It seems that Radoslaw Sikorski is not quite as eurosceptic as he sometimes tries to make out. Also one would like to know why our own Foreign Secretary refrained from signing the paper. Was it that he did not want to criticize la Ashton; was it that he did not agree with the sentiments expressed in it; or was it that he simply was not aware that this criticism was being put together?

7 comments:

  1. Ashton is one of those unfortunate people who's looks tells you exactly what is inside.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A lot of them around in politics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Antisthenes, you should have written this instead:

    "Ashton is one of those unfortunate people whose looks tells you exactly what is inside."

    Still and all Helen and I concur with your sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Antisthenes, you should have written this instead:

    "Ashton is one of those unfortunate people whose looks tells you exactly what is inside."

    Still and all Helen and I concur with your sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Antisthenes, you should have written this instead:

    "Ashton is one of those unfortunate people whose looks tells you exactly what is inside."

    Still and all Helen and I concur with your sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Or maybe, as has been suggested to me, she is incompetent enough, and a lightening rod. Thus Hague wouldn't want to undemine her any further. She is weak, and that is how he likes it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That assumes Gawain that Hague is trying to get something out of all this. Not sure I can agree with that.

    ReplyDelete