Catherine Ashton” “Doomed to failure

European elections draw near and it’s time draw a balance, especially for an institutional figure with the stature of the EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whose role and responsibilities were considerably downsized before the present mandate. There are many reasons to strengthen foreign policies and common defence, but a decrease in powers in terms of foreign policy and security severely impacts national sovereignty. That’s why the development of a European common policy proceeded at a very slow pace.This tension should be borne in mind when evaluating the commitment of Catherine Ashton nearing the end of her term in office. In fact, the conclusions are negative, but it’s not Ashton’s fault. Over recent years, EU’s foreign and security policy has been irresolute and inconclusive, but it has largely been the result of what the majority of Member States wanted it to be. Since the election of Baroness Ashton, which had professionally dealt with international policy, security, and defence, never before, it was widely understood that the governments’ intention was for the High Representative to hold a low profile, creating a figure that would not interfere with the activity of the true maneuverers. From a purely national perspective it’s perfectly understandable that the member States intend to have direct control on the organization and the use of its own armed forces, on the development of defence policies and on the possibility of sending peace-keeping units in theaters of war. Considering the deficit in democracy that characterizes the EU, as well as the gap separating Brussels’ institutions from European citizens, the decision to preserve decision-making powers regarding the use of the armed forces (EU soldiers) is also easily justifiable to the public opinion.Moreover, while bearing in mind all of these factors, over the past years EU’s foreign policy has not lived up to the challenges. The failure to develop a clear foreign policy, the continual delays with which the High Representative addressed international crises coupled by a lack of deciseveness when the matters were being formally dealt with, is under everyone’s eyes to see. Worst still, the EU failed to carry out its basic assignment at international level, namely to act as the initiator of stability and peacemaking activity. The lack of a strategic vision for the Mediterranean and the middle-eastern area led the EU to be taken by surprise by the Arab spring, standing as a helpless spectator. Further still, the void that has characterized foreign policy over the past years prompted the resurgence of neo-colonial drives in France and Great Britain. The reckless use of armed force in the Libyan conflict fails to comply with the role of Europe as a civil power, and it’s hard to justify in terms of humanitarian needs. The EU permitted this to happen while failing to guide the reconstruction of the country when the strife was over. Moreover, Europe has failed to carry out an incisive role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear power, even now that the United States are drifting apart from the Middle East, and it wouldn’t even have been able to prevent a grievous intervention in Syria were it not for widespread opposition, that prevented it in different ways. Conversely, the Holy See strongly condemned armed conflict and encouraged the use of dialogue in all these occasions, providing increasingly accurate reasons, based on an attentive analysis of the facts and not on theological motivations. If the EU truly intends to act as peacemaker through the implementation of its own foreign policy, there are clear examples of what should be done and what should be avoided.