Small country – big job

Today’s FT devotes almost half a page to the Irish presidency of the EU, which starts on January 1st and will be accompanied by a collective sigh of relief at the end to Berlusconi’s embarrassing ‘reign’ which “began with him comparing a German MEP to a Nazi camp guard and ended with the collapse of the stability pact and the diastrous EU summit in Brussels”.

The FT hits on a subject close to my heart; the big role that smaller countries play in greasing the wheels of the European machine. They also interview Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, who contradicts recent reports that the Irish would kick the stalled constitution talks into the long grass. (I can’t find that one in the online FT – it’s on page 3 of the European paper edition though.) Brian Cowen, who is widely acknowledged to be very smart and very astute, says that the team Ireland brings to the presidency has recent and deep experience in the extremely tricky negotiations on Northern Ireland. We also bring to the table a prime minister, Bertie Aherne, who, while no great visionary, is a superb deal-maker. And (cleverly, I think), Cowen says straight off the bat that any verbal deals struck with Berlusconi will expire with the Italian presidency on 31 December. The Irish will start with the constitution in its current draft, and a clean slate. So, if negotiations can be re-started soon enough, it’s possible that Ireland just might deliver the constitution.

But what do small countries bring to the EU decision-making process in general?

The FT readily acknowledges that the worst presidencies in recent years were Chirac’s and Berlusconi’s. Small countries, e.g. Ireland, Denmark, Finland, etc. have had extraordinarily successful EU presidencies the last few times, and manage to get through lots of difficult institutional business that might otherwise remain stalled. Which is why getting rid of the rotating presidency was such a bad idea. Without it, a lot of high-level EU business simply would not get done.

What do the small countries have going for them?

First off, they’re not competing with the big players, and so manage the ‘honest broker’ role far better than France, Germany, UK, Spain or Italy can. Smaller countries don’t have the major strategic interests of the big ones, and they’re not running off in triumvirates, or quadriviates or what have you every 5 minutes and declaring themselves the engine of Europe. And, probably because multilateral institutions are small countries’ only means to have any say, we work doubly hard to make sure these institutions actually work.

Secondly, most of the small countries (let’s pass swiftly over Belgium) don’t have the the colonial baggage that tends to complicate both EU and external affairs. Nor do they have the accompanying perceptions of themselves that demand obeisance from the enlargement countries and others. It helps you to keep clicking through the agenda when you haven’t already annoyed everyone in the room by simply turning up and clearing your throat.

So there are strategic reasons why the small countries do such a good job of ‘chairing’ Europe. But led me add a few intangibles to the mix.

It’s impossible to imagine a leader with the breath-taking arrogance of a Chirac, Giscard d’Estaing or Berlusconi emanating from a country where everyone knows you failed 2nd Arts and only got the nomination because your older brother had better things to do. Small country leaders are simply unable to become so removed from the reality of every day life, and the expectation of simple good manners, because in small countries it’s much harder to insulate yourself in this way. (fewer degrees of separation, less of the lavish trappings of power) Having an elevated view of your own personal importance, and that of the country you lead, is a severe handicap when it comes to chairing a meeting to general satisfaction and actually getting things done.

Then there’s the experience internationally of being the leader, or a senior minister, of a small country. Every concession you get is hard won, but is achieved through persuasion and quick manouevring rather than the banging of fists on tables. When it comes to managing the egos and work programmes of an EU presidency, the ability to swim like a minnow around and between the big country whales and sharks of Europe is absolutely invaluable.

Ireland has done a particularly good job of having a big say for such a small country, and not just in the EU. It helps to be just about the only wealthy, white, English-speaking country in the world that everyone still seems to think is an oppressed, if charming, minority. A friend of mine also insists that the Irish have done so well internationally because there is nothing like growing up in a large family to teach you how to think and act tactically and strategically. (if so, our falling birth rate will put an end to that.) Certainly, the Irish have never seen an international institution they didn’t like, and wouldn’t want their friends and family to join. We pop up all the time on the lists of over-represented countries in international organisations.

But I hope I’ve managed to show there are lots of practical reasons why small countries are so essential to grease the wheels of international juggernauts (setting aside for the moment whether it’s a good thing that these institutions work or work well). And let’s not forget, that as of 1st May next year, small countries will be in the majority of EU member states. We’re loud, we’re proud, and we’re here to stay…

Your thoughts are enthusiastically solicited – especially views that perhaps paint a less benign picture of small countries’ role (begging bowl anyone?) as I’m hoping to help the 21st Century Trust organise a conference in Ireland in early 2005 on the international role of small countries.