THE DANGERS OF THE NEW EUROPEAN APPOINTMENTS (1) : VON DER LEYEN: THE WRONG CANDIDATE AT THE WRONG TIME

?

In a climate of political destabilisation and fairly general public indifference, the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen to a second term as president of the European Commission has often been discussed, with a certain feeling of resignation. This may seem secondary. After all, since Santer, through Prodi, Barroso and Juncker, we have had a succession of mediocre presidents.

?

Such detachment is a mistake. The European Union is currently drifting towards the greatest crisis in its history (paradoxically, many claimed this at the time of the Brexit, wrongly, and are now making the opposite mistake). Firstly, war has once again become a major threat on the continent, at the very moment the United States is proving to be unreliable. Secondly, the EU is clearly facing a growing climate threat. Yet its efforts remain insufficient - and are increasingly contested. Thirdly, the major financial crisis, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, have further dilapidated public finances. Rising interest rates are forcing us to face up to this. These threats reinforce each other. Unfortunately, the von der Leyen's presidency has highlighted her inability to manage them.

?

To understand this, we need to go back to 2019. After eliminating a series of declared candidates, von der Leyen emerged at the last minute, pushed by Macron and then Merkel. On the face of it, it was a good profile. In fact, after six years in office, von der Leyen had completely failed to reorganise the German army, evaded questions from the parliamentary committee monitoring her massive use of consultants, and twice destroyed all the data on her phone in the process. In short, as a former defence minister of his own party put it, "the situation of the army is catastrophic" (a diagnosis that has since been sadly confirmed). (Politico, 2/7/2019).

?

Nevertheless, given the difficult political context, and in order to finally appoint a woman to head the Commission, many people (including the author) thought that a compromise was needed, in the hope that she would learn from her past mistakes. Unfortunately, these hopes soon proved to be in vain.

?

For example, her communications adviser Flosdorff was immediately appointed - alongside the official spokesperson - at director-general level (€17,000 per month at the time) with the exclusive task of promoting the President's image in Germany (Libération, 9/11/2019). Having promised transparency to the European Parliament in order to be appointed, von der Leyen also quickly scuttled it by refusing access to the contract of the agency responsible for promoting her. It was clear from the outset that the cult of her image was the President's primary concern (as it had been in Germany before).?

?

On the other hand, the strategic vision soon proved to be non-existent (as it had been in Germany before). In early 2020, Covid-19 led to the rapid and haphazard adoption of national barriers by governments. Some of them reminded the Commission to ensure free movement. Not von der Leyen. The Franco-German tandem, under the impetus of Macron, proposed an exceptional European loan to combat the economic shock of the pandemic. Not von der Leyen. Several countries proposed pooling their vaccine orders. Not von der Leyen. She simply followed the Member States’ lead.

?

Behind the strategic weakness lay managerial weakness. By choosing bad managers for the common management of vaccines, Europe lost several months compared to Trump's America or Johnson's Great Britain (managers who were not very gifted). Commissioner Kyriakides was discreetly replaced by Commissioner Breton, who proved on several occasions to be one of the only effective Commissioners. Next, the Commission systematically refused access to vaccine purchase contracts - even to the European Parliament, which was supposed to be monitoring the Commission. A refusal that shrouded contracts worth at least €35 billion in opacity, a cataclysmic precedent for the future, particularly in defence.

?

What's more, von der Leyen had secret direct exchanges by text message with the CEO of Pfizer, the main beneficiary of all these billions. As I pointed out at the time, this problem should have been neutralised immediately. But von der Leyen did the opposite. First she claimed that text messaging no longer existed (as she did in Germany before). This turned out to be a lie, and she then claimed that she was under no obligation to communicate them. Predictably, legal action was taken by the New York Times (reflecting a certain complacency on the part of the European press), and an investigation was also opened by the European Public Prosecutor. All this will come back.?

?

In 2022 came the war in Ukraine. Once again, von der Leyen managed propaganda more than reality. On the one hand, she was quick to defend Ukraine's accession to the European Union, an easy and distant promise. However, she did not carry out any studies or make any speeches on the multiple financial, institutional and military costs of such a decision (Delors would never have done this). On the other hand, despite torrents of experts, the Commission underestimated the immediate material needs. 30 months on, Europe finds itself increasingly threatened, with Russia stronger than expected, America half paralysed, and a lack of the necessary instruments.

?

Contrary to official rhetoric, stable and viable support for Ukraine has not yet been established, either militarily or financially. Strikingly, despite an inventive initiative by Mr Borrell and Mr Breton, the Commission has also waited more than two years before presenting an embryonic strategy for the defence industry (Euractiv, 6/3/24). What's more, the public still has no idea of the major sacrifices that the vague promises of the von der Leyen/Michel/Metsola trio will ultimately entail. As for the institutional reforms imposed by a Union of 30 or 35 Member States, the President remains deathly silent, even though they are vital.

?

Von der Leyen is not the new Delors: she is the anti-Delors, the triumph of appearance over substance. She is content to do her conceptual shopping in the ideas of governments (when they do not endanger her), and she mistakes this for imagination. Hence the recurring feeling of delay and incoherence. The Commission has ceased to be the brain of the Union. We saw this again recently. Ukraine is bleeding from lack of shells. Who has come up with new solutions to deliver more? The Czech Republic, then Estonia. Not the von der Leyen Commission. (Forbes, 7/4/24).

?

In the meantime, the institution is increasingly run according to the President's whim and her constant thirst for announcements. She is bringing forward trade proposals that torpedo the negotiating position on Brexit. She is negotiating a data deal of dubious legality with Biden. She is negotiating an agreement with Tunisia on the return of refugees. She is asserting unconditional solidarity with Israel in defiance of Europe's traditional balanced strategy. Some Commissioners regularly have to call her to order. (Guardian, 18/9/23).

?

The same goes for nominations. The Flosdorf episode of 2019 is being repeated several times. In 2023, Ms Scott-Morton, an American and advisor to numerous monopolies, was approached to become Chief Economist for Competition. Vestager and von der Leyen were so insistent that Scott-Morton announced her appointment to her colleagues in the United States... months before the selection procedure. A splendid vision of competition indeed (Le Vif, 31/7/23). In 2024, a German parliamentarian from his own party was appointed as special representative for SMEs. He was up against two women... both of whom had better skills than he does. A splendid defence of women. The procedure was also manipulated to avoid the intervention of the Commissioner responsible for SMEs, and the MEP was removed from his control (Euronews, 5/4/24). We should also note here the creation of useless high-level administrative posts (17,000 euros/month) to rehousing members of parliament. A splendid use of administration.

?

The President thus advocates the rule of law with highly variable geometry. In another repertoire, Green MEPs highlighted the fact that her husband had links with companies that had obtained support from the European budget. Bizarrely, the only unconvincing justification came from another commissioner, Ms Jourova, and not from an independent body (Politico, 10/3/23).

?

There are few limits to the Commission's instrumentalisation. For example, the Commission initiated a review of the rules on the protection of wolves... after one of the President's ponies was killed by a wolf. However, while Europe clearly needs to safeguard safety, a revision does not seem necessary. The current rules allow this protection without difficulty, as shown by several Member States such as Sweden (Guardian, 27/1/24).

?

This instrumentalisation is also evident in von der Leyen's many political zigzags. In 2021, for example, she insisted on reopening and concluding negotiations on a new trade agreement with China. As I wrote at the time, this made absolutely no strategic sense but it was then necessary to please Merkel, who herself drove for the German car industry (Le Vif, 15/3/21). In 2023, von der Leyen of course changed tack. She made a very tough speech on China (but then she had to please Biden, at a time when she was seeking an appointment to NATO, her real objective). Now she seems to have returned to a more moderate approach, in which de-risking is above all a justification for great slowness in de-coupling (in this, again, one feels the pressure of the German industry). .

?

Similarly, at the start of the pandemic, von der Leyen declared that exceptions to intellectual property rights would have to be accepted in order to facilitate access to vaccines for poor countries. Subsequently, even more than the United States, the Commission became the worst enemy of these exceptions within the WTO. Similarly, for years von der Leyen built her propaganda around the Green Deal and the fight against climate change. In 2024, faced with elections, she largely abandoned the Commission's strategy. In this great environmental sell-off, agriculture was even exempted overnight from any efforts to reduce its carbon emissions. The action programme for heat pumps was delayed. Following what collective deliberation? What studies? With what compensation measures? The public knows nothing. In the midst of the Commission's mental chaos, the Commissioner responsible for climate change, who is from the same party as the President and more honest than she is, declares that, on the contrary, efforts must be maintained and increased.

?

All these reversals show just how important only one thing really is to von der Leyen: getting a new mandate. It is for this reason, moreover, that her support within the EPP remains modest: everyone is well aware that she will quickly change her opinion depending on the context.

?

With this objective alone, she then launched an electoral campaign... which was not an electoral campaign (which does not prevent her from invoking political legitimacy). In reality, she did not present herself anywhere to the electorate. This avoided two threats: contradictory debates with opponents, and unpredictable popular assemblies. All communication must remain tightly controlled and sanitised. This avoids any uncomfortable questions. In the same vein, as soon as Commissioner Breton sent out a tweet highlighting the EPP's weak support for von der Leyen, she immediately reacted. In a delirious communication, the institution's Secretary General threatened any Commissioner in breach of his or her duties with dismissal, and even the loss of a pension. It was as if the Treaties forbade the Commissioners from making political assessments and made them subject to the orders of the President. The President wants an election campaign... where others cannot express themselves (Le Vif, 23/3/24). Once again, one notices a certain cowardice in the process. Ursula von der Leyen is looking more and more like the Marie-Antoinette of the Berlaymont.

?

She certainly possesses some qualities. She works hard. She is sober. She masters her communication. She had a moment of courage about the need for an increased European budget (but forgot it quickly). Above all, she has worked for a much-needed better representation of women in the administration. Unfortunately, this in no way reduces the fundamental reality. Far from correcting the faults and weaknesses in her management in Germany, she has on the contrary exacerbated them in Brussels. Just compare Mrs Lagarde's performance at the European Central Bank. She made a few minor mistakes, but otherwise managed her institution well in a difficult period. Von der Leyen has the opposite record: a few minor achievements, but a generally deteriorated and decerebrate institution. Admittedly, presiding over the Commission is a difficult job, but many mistakes could have been avoided simply by consulting outside her bunker and holding a real collegial debate with her colleagues. She never knew how to do that. She never learned.

?

If governments and parliamentarians renew her, they will be exposing Europe - and themselves - to three threats. Firstly, they will reinforce the image of a Europe drowned in mismanagement, pork-barrelling and political narcissism. This image has been further reinforced by Qatargate, the incredible deviancies of the Court of Auditors and the unbridled careerism of Charles Michel. The constant stream of such affairs provides the best breeding ground for populism and extremism, and von der Leyen's affairs are not yet over. Furthermore, her recklessness will inevitably be encouraged by her renewal. The impact could become worse in the next years. In a period of latent war and budgetary austerity, this would be very harmful. Rehabilitating the institutions means getting away from politicking and, above all, finding persons with exemplary ethics.

?

Secondly, governments and parliamentarians will reappoint a president who has demonstrated her inability to define a strategy and manage either a college or an administration. Faced with the cumulative triple challenge of the threat of war, climate change and budgetary austerity, this will be destructive. What's more, it would be highly paradoxical to entrust the difficult task of improving European defence to the person who completely failed to improve German defence. Thirdly, such a renewal will open up a boulevard for populism. Von der Leyen is the perfect embodiment of the Eurocratic nomenklatura. Of privileged origin, snobbish (in parallel with her strong appetite for private jets, her love of exchanges with the great and the good explains much of the monumental silliness of the sms), incapable of serious contradictory debates, fiddling with appointments, she will offer an ideal target for years to come. In 2019, it was justified to give her the benefit of the doubt. In 2024, alas, this will be a very dangerous mistake.

?

?

Franklin DEHOUSSE

?

Professor at the University of Liège,

Former Belgian representative in European negotiations,

Former judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union

?

?