In an early test of her readiness to be High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton stumbled.

In the last few weeks, the international community’s attention has focused on Haiti, an impoverished Caribbean country wrecked by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake on January 12, 2010. Countless are dead and the images flooding the internet of the devastation are heartbreaking.

While the Baltic states along with scores of nations, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals have begun to send aid, humanitarian assistance, and other support, Ashton’s leadership of the EU in the situation has been missing.

Earlier last week she chaired a meeting of EU ministers to discuss a response, but her timing was incredibly slow. By that time, EU member states had already begun sending search and rescue teams, medical supplies, food and water, and aid unilaterally. She chose not to go to Haiti to view the situation firsthand, but her efforts might show more urgency if she had. She helped to secure nearly half a billion euros in aid for Haiti under the auspices of the EU, but she surprisingly could not make the EU any more visible.

The EU pledged €122 million in humanitarian aid and a further €107 million for non-humanitarian use; another €200 million will be used for medium and long-term reconstruction.

The European Commission pitched in another €30 million for immediate relief. But this response was far from coordinated, one of Ashton’s chief responsibilities. She could, for example, have gathered civilian humanitarian workers from member states and created a civilian aid corps; that request came from the UN and France instead.

Ashton just heaped money on top of contributions from member states that were already pouring in.

Already it is clear that Ashton does not have a strategy for dealing with crises. Compare her response to Haiti with that of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton canceled her Pacific diplomatic tour and hopped aboard a U.S. Coast Guard plane carrying food, water, and other supplies to the country. The same plane would then be used to fly 50 Americans back home.

Clinton has met with Haitian leaders, pledged swift and long-term American support, and gathered intelligence on her government’s response capabilities. She’s working to improve the distribution of aid, asking for a resolution to the air traffic back-up, coordinating the restoration of Haiti’s vital infrastructure, and planning for the long-term development of the country. The symbolism of her being there carries a big message as well.

Clinton looks engaged, empathetic, and committed; Ashton looks aloof, disinterested, and out-of-touch. Clinton sees the devastation first-hand; Ashton sends outgoing EU commissioner for development Karel De Gucht. Clinton shows she’s an active, results-oriented diplomat; Ashton shows she’s an in-over-her-heard ineffective figurehead.

The comparison shows precisely what Ashton is not. She is not a globetrotting, high-profile, diplomatic heavyweight. She is not a foreign minister or secretary of state. She is also not experienced. She is not ready.

Although they are both top female diplomats from the left, the comparison of Ashton and Clinton isn’t entirely fair. Secretary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have a personal connection with Haiti, having honeymooned there. Former President Clinton is also the UN Envoy to Haiti. Not surprisingly, Secretary Clinton has taken a more personal interest in the situation.

Haiti is also geographically closer to the U.S., so the world’s last superpower is better suited for taking charge there. So why compare these two at all?

Because Europeans created the High Representative position befitting Hillary Clinton’s character but they second-guessed and chose Catherine Ashton. To increase the EU’s profile in world affairs, European leaders created the position of High Representative (and the European Council President).

Federalists had dreams of the office-holder being able to speak on behalf of the entire Union and drive Union policy. They charged the foreign policy chief with leading a large diplomatic service and commanding a several million-euro budget.

Essentially, the EU wanted to create its own State Department. The position would be powerful, have institutional backing, and change EU policy. Put aside the personal comparisons of Clinton and Ashton, and the High Representative is on par with the Secretary of State. Both positions shape and execute foreign policy. They both have big budgets, teams of diplomats, and world-wide representation.

Yet, there is a world of difference in influence and that boils down to personality. It was the type of position Secretary Clinton has. But European leaders became worried about what a powerful Eurocrat might mean for their own power. That’s why they knocked Tony Blair out of the running for European Council President. That’s also why they compromised on Ashton for High Representative.

European leaders feared their own creation, so they chose someone who would not overstep their bounds. Instead of using her mega-budget (that Javier Solana practically begged for and never received) to make a splash in key issues around the globe, Ashton has pledged to use “quiet diplomacy.” This diplomacy is so quiet that it will be almost inaudible.

Maybe she will use her budget to splurge on fancier table flags during her meetings. If Haiti is any indication of how Ashton will use her role in the EU, she has already made it irrelevant. She has made it her job to be a corral leader. She will try to get governments on the same page, but not push a European agenda. That would have been easy when all governments are in agreement, as they were with Haiti. But what about when they aren’t? How will she manage Iran? Or North Korea? How about relations with Russia?

Secretary Clinton benefits from experience; she celebrated her one-year anniversary last week as Secretary of State and she learned the political fallout of disasters after witnessing George W. Bush’s shortcoming with Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But European leaders knowingly chose Ashton without such experience and crises will not wait until she is ready. Amidst her confirmation hearings, Ashton could have shown her capability and claimed a success in her experience. Instead, she choked. Her failure on Haiti was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ashton cannot be blamed entirely; European leaders wanted her position to be a bit hamstrung.

Judging her now may be a bit premature. But first impressions are important and she will have an uphill battle to overcome hers. As if her job wasn’t tough enough, it just got harder.

Michael G. Dozler is a graduate student of international affairs who received a Fulbright research grant for study in Latvia.

Disclaimer:

Views expressed in the opinion section are never those of the Baltic Reports company or the website’s editorial team as a whole, but merely those of the individual writer.