The dark and imposing Justus Lipsius building in Brussels, scene of endless horse trading at European summits, fills Tony Blair with dread.
For it was in this soulless building that the former British prime minister blocked a harmless Belgian from becoming president of the European Commission.
And now the blow to Guy Verhofstadt, prime minister of Belgium at the time of the 2004 veto, haunts Blair as he weighs up whether to assume the plum new post of president of the European Council.
Blair is reluctant to campaign for the job, which would see him return for up to five years to the gloomy Justus Lipsius building, for fear of repeating the experience of Verhofstadt, who was dangerously exposed after becoming the frontrunner.
Blair is in the curious position of being the frontrunner for a major new post, though there are serious question marks over his chances because he is refusing to campaign.
“Tony will not put himself into a position where he is humiliated like Guy Verhofstadt,” one friend said.
But allies of the former prime minister fear that his timidity is in danger of jeopardizing his chances of becoming the first president, a post that will be created if the Lisbon treaty is ratified.
“Tony is in considerable difficulty unless he actively engages,” said one senior figure familiar with the Whitehall and EU workings.
Blair would dearly love to take on the post, as it would allow him to assume a position on the world stage even grander than that of a British prime minister.
“If asked, Tony will serve,” said one of his closest friends of the new post, which comes with two key powers: chairing EU summits, which take place four times a year, and representing the EU at global summits and on the wider world stage.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who has found himself linked to the other major job created by the Lisbon treaty — the high representative for foreign affairs — gave a taste of the importance attached to the post when he spoke of the need to have a figure who can stop the traffic.
“We need someone who, when he or she lands in Beijing or Washington or Moscow, the traffic does need to stop, the talks do need to begin at a very, very high level,” Miliband told The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday.
Blair’s life since leaving office has served as a useful preparation for the role. European leaders, who were wary of Blair after his role in the Iraq War, have noted that he has been studiously evenhanded in dealings with the Israelis and Palestinians in his role as envoy for the “quartet,” which comprises the US, the EU, the UN and Russia.
Blair’s “portfolio” lifestyle, which sees him swan around the world on a private jet to deliver speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars, has raised eyebrows. But it has kept Blair in touch with world leaders; he was granted a strong endorsement by US President Barack Obama earlier this year as “my good friend” who “did it first and perhaps did it better than I will do.”
But the former prime minister’s team knows he faces formidable obstacles. These are: a petition, which has so far attracted 41,326 signatures, saying that it would be wrong to appoint a man who allegedly violated international law in the Iraq War; the implacable opposition of the Tories, who have warned EU leaders that appointing Blair would be seen as a hostile act in Britain; strong opposition from smaller EU member states, who fear that such a high-profile figure would eclipse them; and a concern across the EU that it would be wrong to appoint someone from the most reluctant member of the EU.
Against this background, Blair’s friends are assuming they are in for a bumpy ride. It is widely assumed that EU leaders will have an informal discussion of names for the two new posts — president of the European Council and high representative for foreign affairs — at their summit in Brussels that concludes today.
No appointments can be made until Czech President Vaclav Klaus ratifies the Lisbon treaty. Positive noises from Prague Castle mean that EU leaders can at least begin discussions, with the formal appointments likely at an emergency EU summit in the middle of next month.
“It will be decided in horse trading over the coming weeks,” one Blair ally said. “This will all take place behind closed doors.”
Blair believes this is why it would be wrong to campaign.
“This is a very odd election,” one ally said. “It will be decided by 27 people. This is not something that can be won by running a campaign.”
Blair knows that before any names can be put on the table, EU leaders need to decide what sort of president they want. The treaty deliberately leaves the job specification vague, allowing the successful candidate to write his or her own rules.
One source held up the examples of the two candidates at either extreme — the affable but relatively obscure Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Blair — to show how the name will shape the job.
“The job is whoever they choose. Do they want a Jean-Claude Juncker person who can chair meetings or have someone who can make the EU count for something?” the source said.
Fans of Blair are pointing out the need for a big player after the recent experience in Washington of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who holds the rotating presidency of the EU.
“Reinfeldt got a peremptory handshake with Barack Obama and then he was palmed off with a lunch with Vice President Joe Biden,” the source said. “EU leaders need to decide what sort of person they want.”
Reinfeldt will play a key, though not decisive role, in deciding on the new president. He sympathizes with the small member states, most notably Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands, which questioned Blair by saying the new president must have “demonstrated his commitment to the European project.”
But the decisive voices will be French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who is the most influential leader of the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004.
Berlin is making clear that it will take careful note of the views of the small member states because it does not want the “big three” to impose a candidate. But Sarkozy was the first leader to put Blair’s name on the table.
Merkel is giving nothing away, but is open to the idea of having a major figure who might ease relations with a highly Euroskeptic David Cameron as British prime minister.
“Merkel is pretty keen,” one British source said.
In the end the greatest obstacle for Blair may be mixed signals from Britain. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is highly supportive. But William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, is making clear that Blair will be appointed “over my dead body.”
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS