This chapter examines women’s leadership in EU foreign policy. Any women fill- ing institutional posts in traditionally male-dominated policy sectors are bound to face a series of difficulties (Lazarou and Braden 2019; Williams 2017). Frequently, such difficulties are ascribed to the complexities of striking a balance between family life and work as mothers and carers (European Commission 2018). In the foreign policy sector, they are also often coupled with flawed cultural beliefs con- cerning women’s alleged psychological and physical weaknesses (Gordon 2018; Prasad 2019). To misquote John Gray (1992), one could say that, in the political galaxy, Mars is still mainly inhabited by men. And yet, in the past decade two women have been nominated and acted as chief of EU foreign policy. Ever since the Lisbon Treaty’s introduction of the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR, December 2009), in fact, Catherine Ash- ton and then Federica Mogherini have held the post.1 Against this backdrop, two main questions arise: How did Ashton and Mogherini access their positions? And how have they performed their functions?
Addressing these questions not only provides crucial insights into women’s leadership in the foreign policy sector, it also contributes to the book’s aim of increasing our knowledge of women and leadership in the EU more broadly in multiple ways. First, examining the nomination of the two post-Lisbon HRs sheds light on the opportunities and obstacles faced by women seeking access to EU
leadership in such a traditionally male-dominated sector. As a matter of fact, the nomination of two women as chiefs of EU foreign policy for two mandates in a row constitutes a unicum for the EU. The first, pre-Lisbon HR was a man (Javier Solana), and female commissioners have routinely been allocated “soft” portfolios (see Chapter 3 in this volume).
Second, examining the HR nominations and tenures of two different women al- lows us to identify whether and to what extent their leadership—or lack thereof— was shaped by the EU institutional framework (To ̈mmel 2013). Foreign policy epitomizes the opportunities and challenges the EU institutional system poses to women’s leadership (To ̈mmel 2017). The post-Lisbon HR was seen as a strategic actor in the enhancement of the coherence, and hence effectiveness, of the EU’s po- sition in the international arena (Amadio Viceré 2018). Nonetheless, the multiple separations of power characterizing the EU system of government (Fabbrini 2010) may set several constraints on the HR’s leadership in EU foreign policy (Aggestam and Johansson 2017).
Third, and lastly, the mandates of Ashton and Mogherini were deeply affected by several foreign policy crises. These include the difficult political transition in the Northern African and Middle Eastern region, the ensuing migration emer- gency, the Ukrainian crisis in the Eastern neighborhood, and the terrorist attacks in Europe (Amadio Viceré et al. 2020). The fact that both HRs had to juggle chal- lenging situational factors during their mandates (To ̈mmel 2013, 2019) allows us to capture differences in their leadership in a nuanced manner.
To ensure a comprehensive understanding of Ashton and Mogherini’s leader- ship, we employ two complementary analytical approaches. We start by providing a comparative analysis of their nominations as HRs to examine their respective po- sitional leadership and their behavioral leadership in facing the crisis in Libya (see Chapter 1 in this volume). Although Ashton and Mogherini both faced several political crises during their mandates, Libya represented a very complex policy dossier for both office holders. Ashton had to deal with the popular uprising and the civil war in Libya when she was in the process of establishing the new European External Action Service (EEAS; see Koops and Tercovich 2020). As for Mogherini, her tenure was characterized by the migration crisis related to the Libyan political transition and, following the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, the need to find a balance between ensuring Europe’s security and saving lives in the Mediterranean.
The contribution of our chapter is twofold. On a theoretical level, we employ the original and innovative analytical framework outlined in the introduction to this edited volume (see Chapter 1). By doing so, we participate in the effort to move research beyond the current state of the art. On an empirical level, we shed light on the access to and exercise of women’s leadership in EU foreign policy, which has been largely uncharted territory. In particular, we conduct an empirical examination by triangulating primary and secondary sources, complementing the analysis of EU official documents with information gathered in academic and so- called gray literature.
The chapter is structured as follows: first, we outline the analytical framework and make a set of arguments on its basis; second, we examine the positional lead- ership of HR Ashton and HR Mogherini; third, we examine whether and how Mogherini and Ashton exercised behavioral leadership.
Our analysis shows that the appointments of Ashton and Mogherini can be ex- plained by three equally important and interdependent factors: the situational, the institutional, and the structural settings. The different leadership performances of the two HRs in the management of the Libyan crisis, in turn, can be explained by the situational and the institutional setting.
