It’s the 9th of November…so, in total observance of my usual standard operating procedures, let’s think about the European presidency, or as my wonderful, wonderful Soizick puts it, who’s going to get the job of being Tony Blair.
It looks a lot like the lucky girl won’t be Blair; the reason why is more interesting and more telling. Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen a string of small states around Germany take quite a daring stand in foreign policy; Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, all progressively came out against Tony Blair. It seems more obvious that this is an interesting or daring stand if you take a Brussels view, in which Blair is still a respected member of the world elite, than if you take a street level view, in which he’s widely despised. Also, if you consider the UK or Norway to be a 10 on the NATO scale, the Netherlands must be about an 8 – the presence of the Joint Forces Command in Brunssum, and the long-standing and very close relationship with the British armed forces over the commitment to the NATO Northern Flank, are the most obvious manifestations of this. Indeed, the Dutch army served in the British zone of Iraq and its Apache helicopters, the first European-owned ones, are still flying in Afghanistan. (That the first AH-64Ds in European ownership are Dutch is a marker of NATO spirit in itself.)
So the fact they came out against Blair is interesting.
Further, it’s incredibly rare that the Austrians would launch a significant foreign policy initiative without first clearing it with Berlin. This has been true since at least 1878, and the most famous example is one that neither party would like to recall – the Blankoscheck of 1914. Dutch policy is not much different. The upshot is that in opposing Blair, this odd block of states was in a sense acting for Angela Merkel. Not long ago, and we’re talking two months here, Nicolas Sarkozy was being tempted to support Blair; relations between Britain and France have rarely been better than during the last three or so years, it being a major priority for both sides to mend fences after the ghastly Alistair Campbell-inspired frogbashing campaign in the run-up to the Iraq war.
The Franco-German alliance is considered untouchable by both allies, and everyone else – we all know only too well the alternatives. Practicality requires both of them to maintain a relationship nearly as close with Britain, as does the value of having other options. So, assuming Merkel doesn’t want Blair, it was necessary to have the opposition to him floated by others.
In terms of foreign policy, this is the Germany that resulted from the 9th of November, when Merkel herself decided to go to the sauna rather than rush to the border. She apparently reasoned that, once open, there would be no closing it again, and therefore there was no hurry; of course, she was right, but when you think of some of the stories from the Wall years about people whose lives were utterly changed by which side of the border chance put them, it demonstrated a lot of confidence in her reasoning.
This is the Berlin republic, then; discreet, hypercompetent, and steeped in that distinctly northern European combination of self-effacing modesty and intense pride. Like 17th century houses in Amsterdam or 18th century ones in Edinburgh or York; ostentatiously modest, excessive in their austerity of design. Or the supposed Yorkshire traits – being both taciturn and opinionated is quite a trick. It’s been said before that in German, there’s no distinction between the words for citizen/civil/civic and for bourgeois, and that the revolution worked in this ambiguity. Merkel is exhibit A.
I like your way of thinking Alex. But I seriously think that more people are asking why a Brit should get that job, even disregarding party affiliations for the moment, when it seems clear that, if anything, putting a former leader, who’s reputation has only been saved by his successor’s overall less than convincing performance would probably help the Tories – both because he could not be a “uniter” after the Iraq issue and because it would likely tie Labour’s hands when it comes to scapegoating. Both is not good for the EU. Blair lost the presidency on his own when he didn’t even think of becoming EU President…
I would be wary of putting too much weight on the idea that what Austria or Holland or Belgium says is inspired by Germany or German desires. Sure, some attention is paid to how Berlin thinks about things, but ultimately internal politics matter much more.
It’s a bit of an Anglosaxon fallacy, this.
What Tobias and Martin said. 🙂
Why should this Brit get the job?
– Schengen
– Eurozone
– Iraq War
– the probability of a Tory government hostile to Blair in the next election
And concerning Germany and the “small states around Germany”. Like Martin I don´t think they are following German “wishes”.
I believe it´s more a case of the 4 points above plus perhaps the effort of smaller member states to defend their influence? As in, fear of getting overwhelmed by the large member states with important positions going “only” to large states. All 4 of them mentioned, I believe, are net payers so perhaps it is easier for them to speak out?
Of course it didn´t hurt that the German government seemed to be luke-warm about Blair. The few times German media (unlike UK media) mentioned the Blair candidacy it was always: “If the rest of the EU wants Blair, Germany wouldn´t stand in the way”. Not the most enthusiastic support. 🙂
By raising a protest the 4 smaller countries destroyed that “Blair is inevitable” UK media meme. And got German support in the search for a compromise candidate. Win – win for both.
Wow, is the German media a mouthpiece of the German Government to that extent? They even toe the official line on who is to be EU “President”, and the thought of the Government are there to be read in the newspapers? We are supposed to read the runes by counting how many times they mention Blair, and that is to be a surrogate for the opinion of the German Govt? It sounds like Pravda or the Peoples Daily, but I guess that explains why some Germans complain that there is no real debate concerning the EU allowed in Germany.
I find that very strange and potentially dangerous for democracy that the German “media” can be parsed like this, but perhaps that’s just my Anglo-Saxon bias showing. For the UK, I prefer the media to be at war with the Government than acting as unofficial spokesmen.
So, is Van Rompuy going to garner support because most EU leaders disapprove of Blair? The German media doesn’t seem too influential, but here are some sources that are making an impact: http://bit.ly/2Z4bpj
Alex wrote:
“Further, it’s incredibly rare that the Austrians would launch a significant foreign policy initiative without first clearing it with Berlin. This has been true since at least 1878.”
Um. No. This is really, really, really from outer space. And I don’t mean any nit-picking about the fact that for a good part of that period, the capital of the one part of Germany that actually mattered was Bonn.
Austria practiced independent foreign policy as a neutral European country during the Cold War, not much different from the country that I’m living in. After that, the most significant foreign policy initiatives have been joining the EU in the first place – whether that can be described as something requiring “clearing it with Berlin” depends on the viewpoint; in my opinion it required clearing it with Brussels – and, of course, the Central European Initiative, where Germany was not involved.
I have to agree with the others. This blog post seems to have been written through very thick British eyeglasses.
Cheers,
J. J.
Jon,
“Wow, is the German media a mouthpiece of the German Government to that extent?”
Uhhh…
You did maybe read British newspapers in the last few months? About how Blair was the best man for the job and him getting the job inevitable?
So I´m just a tiny bit cynical about how the UK media are so independent. 🙂
And about German newspapers. Maybe I was unclear here.
On the few times German media covered the “race” for the EU Presidency including the EXTENSIVE UK media support for Blair, they simply reported that according to sources in the German government: “If the rest of the EU wants Blair, Germany wouldn´t stand in the way”.
Is that easier to understand?
So just forget your superior “Anglo-Saxon” bias.
Reading US or UK newspapers, they are full of leaks by “anonymous government sources”. Just don´t tell me that there isn´t any government influence there.
Not to mention newspapers like the “Daily Telegraph” who simply invent (false) stories to sell their paper.
Have to agree with Detlef here, not only is jon livesay inventing something Detlef never said, its also ridiculous considering the sorry staate of British print media.
In general, this British hype about a position that is rather meaningless mainly because the Brits did block any atempt to get serious about common EU foreign policy is quite funny.
Just like those ongoing projections of the British nationalist power game thinking onto Germany which is the least country to think in those terms.