The competences and responsibilities of the High Representative were a lot and even before the start of the first term of the renewed High Representative, it was very doubtful that the function could be performed by one person. According to Missiroli (2010) and Hillion (2008), even with the help of the EEAS, this function was too much demanding for one person. However, Ashton failed especially in one very important aspect. It was asked of Ashton to be a leader in EU foreign policy. She was not able to provide leadership and strategic orientation. In 2010, there was still no comprehensive strategy and there were almost no clear long-term goals regarding EU foreign relations (Bendiek and Kramer, 2010).
The first year practically consisted solely of criticism. Ashton did not only showed bad thing that year. According to some scholars “Ashton was a quick learner, studied her briefs effectively, was a strong chairwoman of tense meetings and exuded personal charm” (this was shown for example in FAC meetings) (Howorth, 2011).
A positive element of Ashton is that she was courageous. In one of her invited speeches she pushes for a longer term strategic approach of tackling the main problems in the world. This speech was in Athens in July 2010 (Howorth, 2011).
4.7.1.
Depending on the Member States
A problem with the MS, were the bigger MS. The High Representative was present during meetings of the European Council. However, it did not had the desired effect of an overarching European diagnosis. This diagnosis had to lead to discussions resulting in a common vision in EU’s external affairs. The MS prevented a European diagnosis. The bigger MS threated the High Representative as a mere official with one purpose only: they could use and abuse her when they needed a scapegoat because of the lack of EU action. Stefan Lehne56 mentioned that the big
countries were more active in criticizing and undermining the High Representative than before the Lisbon Treaty. The reason for this was the legitimacy of speaking and acting on behalf of the EU. He also argued that the Lisbon Treaty made European foreign policy weaker instead of stronger (Devuyst, 2012).
Looking at the coherence between the different EU external policies. Coherence was possible but only when the MS were united. However, in practice, they were strongly divided. The differences that the MS had among each other were caused by their history and that had an effect on their interests and national foreign policy. The differences were based in the nature of the MS. It was very difficult to get an agreement with the EU institutions or other MS. It can be concluded that, the EU is an economic giant but at the same time a military and political dwarf in international relations (Miedzinska, 2014).
The EU had a lot of state-like characteristics but its foreign, security and defence policies were still in the hands of the MS. There had to be unanimity among the MS before action could be taken. International interaction asked sometimes for rapid reactions and the EU was incapable of doing that. The MS were seeing foreign policy as a national prerogative and EU action was an extension of the legitimacy of the MS. As long as the role and activity of the High Representative was being challenged by the MS, Ashton’s authority was weakened and her legitimacy as authoritative interlocutor undermined (Edwards, 2014; Helwig and Ruger, 2014).
The relationship between the High Representative and the MS changed, because of the addition role of the High Representative as member of the Commission and as head of the EEAS. However, the intergovernmental nature of the European foreign policy stayed the same as before the Lisbon Treaty. The High Representative was still very dependent on the willingness of the MS. The CFSP was still intergovernmental instead of supranatural. The Libya crisis (see case 1) showed that the High Representative can be easily side-lined if the MS decided to do that. Even in the field
of strategic planning, the MS were in power. It was very difficult for an EU institution to create common priorities or visions (Helwig, 2014; Dijkstra, 2011).
According to Helwig (2014) “the EU will always fall short of being as cohesive, united and efficient as a single state. For that reason, the High Representative had other criteria or standards were judged on than a Foreign Minister of a country. The High Representative was dependable of the collective political will of the MS (Helwig, 2014).
Crises showed the real nature of the role of the High Representative. The MS “might force the High Representative to act as a quiet diplomat” (Helwig, 2014) regarding foreign policy matters but it also presented opportunities for the High Representative. It did not mean that the role of the High Representative is dispensable. A skilled and well-connected diplomatic pioneer is capable “to sharpen the foreign policy profile of the EU and work on new strategic initiatives together with member states” (Helwig, 2014).
The MS have to transfer foreign policy autonomy to the EU before something more of the High Representative can be expected (Gundert, 2014). The EU is at its strongest when it is united. Success within the UN or with the strategic partners comes more rapid when it already have reached a consensus among its MS. Unity of purpose is an important factor. To reach consensus between the MS, leadership is required (Whitman, 2010). However, Ashton did not performed well in her role of taking leadership, especially, when it came to reaching consensus between MS.
4.7.2.
Impact of Ashton
High Representative Ashton mentioned that her dual-hatted function as High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission ‘naturally contributes to the consistency of the EU’s external actions’ (EEAS Report, 2011). Not only was the High Representative important in contributing to the consistency of the EU external actions, but also to the EEAS, the Commission as well the Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy and the President of the European Council. According to Ramopoulos and Odermatt (2013) these functions were important but to ensure consistency in EU external relations, great political leadership was required.
One of the objectives of the High Representative was to create a constructive bridge between the Commission and the intergovernmental Councils (European Council, the Council, and FAC). Ashton was too weak in comparison with the single MS representatives in reality. The role of the representative of the EU was on many occasions already occupied by the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission. Barroso and Van Rompuy had many conferences in different locations (Quaglia, 2014).
According to Howorth (2011), it was clear from the start that the job of High Representative was an impossible job and would only lead to disappointment. Especially, due to the person they elected as High Representative. The MS choose a person who lacked charisma. However, the job also lacked real power which the EU needed if the EU wanted to act as a global leader (Novak, 2014).
It was the question if somebody else instead of Ashton would have made much difference. The problems that the EU had to face were too complex for one person to solve (Barber, 2010). The possibilities of the High Representative were limited right from the start. Due to the limited possibilities the role of the High Representative did not end intergovernmental hegemony in the area of foreign policy (Gundert, 2014).
According to Gundert (2014) a different High Representative would not have much influence on the performance of the High Representative. The reason behind this statement was that in crises, the MS have a “strong tendency to protect national prerogatives in foreign policy” (Gundert, 2014). With a stronger High Representative the lack of united foreign policy in the EU, would most probably be even more painfully obvious (Gundert, 2014).
It can be considered that Ashton failed to live up her goals envisaged at the Lisbon Treaty. She failed mostly because of the lack of leadership she provided the EEAS, but also because of a lack of initiative regarding the EU foreign policy without a strategic compass. The problems that the Treaty of Lisbon had to tackle, are still not solved in the area of EU foreign policy. According to Gundert (2014) it was just not realistic to expect that the High Representative would be able to make these changes single-handedly. It was, however, also a work in progress and is not
immediately solved after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Ramopoulos and Odermatt, 2013).
Her abilities as a negotiator had proven to be an asset to the EU. She also tried to improve the Mediterranean region. She promoted peace and economic development in that region. As an appreciation for her effort, she received the Business Med Blue Award (Miedzinska, 2014). The award showed that Ashton was an excellent mediator and promoted peace and economic development. However, there were no breakthroughs (Alonso, 2014).
A possible explanation of the lack of breakthroughs were the responsibilities of Ashton. The responsibilities of the High Representative were enormous. It was a huge and relentless workload for one person (De Baere and Wessel, 2015).
In 2013 and 2014, the criticism towards Ashton performance decreased. It had two reasons. The first reason was that the expectations were tempered. It became clear that the High Representative was limited in the current CFSP framework during crises. The second reason was, that Ashton achieved some of her expectations (Helwig and Ruger, 2014).