On Van Rompuy and Ashton

A few passing thoughts on the EU appointments:

Van Rompuy's probably a good choice. Belgians are usually quite good at playing the EU game, navigating the maze and striking deals - their country is perhaps even more complicated and consensus-oriented than the EU. He's already proved himself by ending the latest Belgian political crisis. And, even better, he's discreet. The EU presidency was never going to be an answer to Barack Obama - it's an unelected and weak position inside a select club, not a symbolic and executive role.

Unsure about Ashton for foreign policy high rep. Low profile, almost no foreign-policy experience, although she was trade commissioner. It's as though the Council had shied away from really using this new position, from fulfilling its potential. Still, big ego and star quality rarely accomplish much in the EU system, especially in the intergovernmental bit - it's all built around patient negotiations and compromises.

The weaknesses of EU foreign policy ultimately lie in the divisions among member states and the fact that today's Europe is ideologically and militarily unsuited to a great-power role. Tinkering with institutions and personalities may help this a bit but won't change the fundamentals. No super-president and high rep will give Europe a bigger clout in places like Afghanistan while we are reluctant to commit the blood and treasure it takes.

This is no way to select the foreign policy high rep. While Ashton may turn out to be decent or even good at her new role, surely you can't decide these things by deferring to geographic and political "balance"? Apparently she was nominated because they had to "give the Brits something", having dropped Blair from EU pres. How about, err, experience? Nominate more than one and have hearings in the European parliament.