The EU’s arrival on the world stage

With Maastricht, the institutions entered a new political sphere, the sphere of diplomacy, of traditional international relations, and of non-economic foreign policy. If on a community level external representation was chiefly the responsibility of the Commission Delegations, under CFSP the task fell principally to the Presidency of the Council. The division of authority in terms of external action and diplomatic relations within the Union seemed never to have been so clear and precise. As a matter of fact, due to the diverse nature of such policies, which included both economic agreements that the Commission was qualified to deal with, and civil and military operations that the Council was qualified to deal with, a rather confusing situation dragged on, in which the EU remained for the most part unavailable for third countries. Although within the Commission there were the Directorates-General (DG for External Relations and the DGs for Development, Trade, Enlargement and Humanitarian aid, as well as the Service brought together by the Commission to deal with external relations) to put foreign policy into action, when it came to Community policies, the responsibility for representing the Union was monopolized by the Commission Delegations. This was to such an extent that none of the member states, not even those that held the rotating EU presidency, had the same powers of representation. These Delegations multiplied at an exceptional rate, reaching 128 (123 for third countries, and 5 for international organizations : OECD, OSCE, WTO, UN, FAO).

Furthermore, the Delegations carried out duties of a diplomatic nature because they set forth, illustrated, presented the policies of the Union to the rest of the world, and were an opportunity to put these policies into practice. The Delegations analysed and reported on the policies and developments of affairs in the countries where they were accredited, and they were able to conduct negotiations within in the limits of the mandate that they had received. This means that, as far as third countries were concerned, the Delegations exercised the powers given them by the treaty of the European Community, and they promoted the interests of the Community regarding cross-sectional common policies. In some cases their authority was extended to sectors in which the Community did not have exclusive powers, such as law and internal affairs.

EU delegation in G8

Photo : European Commission

Certain aspects of their work remained a mystery and even their legal status was not clarified, creating confusion about who they were representing. Sometimes it was assumed to be the Community, sometimes the Union. Often the Delegations, especially the Delegation chiefs, were seen as representing the Union in its entirety, and even Europe as a vaguely understood whole. The majority of the Delegations, although they depend solely on the Commission, also have links with the Council and the Parliament, and so they acted as representatives of the entire Community, increasing the uncertainty about roles. Although under the Common Security Policy the role of the Delegations was minor they continued to participate, because as has been said, they cooperated with diplomatic missions of member states.

The changes made by the Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty seems to resolve the state of diplomatic uncertainty and the duplication of roles of representation with the creation of the European External Action Service. Still, the fact that its internal structure was intentionally omitted from the treaty leaves High Representative Mrs Ashton with a mess of administration and policy that it will not be easy to unravel. In fact, anticipating that the EEAS will have to be composed in equal number of functionaries from the Commission, functionaries from the Council and personnel drafted in from the national diplomatic services, the new treaty’s provisions leave ample room for interpretation as to ‘who’ must represent the European Union. This imprecision, certainly deliberate rather than accidental, will inevitably give rise to inter-institutional negotiations that could continue until April, when Mrs. Ashton will have to propose and obtain approval of the decision about the structure and the function of the Service, subject to consultation with the European Parliament and the approval of the Commission.

On an internal level, the current focus is on the impact of the reform and on the views of the Ministries for Foreign Affairs from the member states, but also on other ministries and departments who for example deal with visas or with development cooperation. Meanwhile as far as the European institutions are concerned, the role played by the Commission, in the form of the family of Directorates-General RELEX and the Delegations, and that played by the Council, essentially in the form of the General Secretariat, is the other question that needs to be resolved. The Commission will be wondering whether its Directorates-General for External Relations and its Delegations (who with their team of project managers already have the beginnings of a diplomatic service) will make up the major part of the European Service, or if they will instead be relegated to simply providing technical assistance in the business sector or with development cooperation, while the Secretariat of the Council or the Foreign Offices of the member states control the political affairs. It could be necessary to divide the Service internally into departments, by which for example an Ambassador to represent the European Union would be appointed as head of the political department, and Commission staff would be barred from taking frontline political jobs and would only be able to apply for technical positions.

EU-US summit

Photo : European Commission

The second factor worth considering is that the smallest countries are not represented in all the foreign capitals and thus could feel relieved by the presence of a delegation from the EU (the Commission Delegations should become EU Delegations, although the question of the formal title that they will assume remains unanswered). Other states, however, will want to maintain their widespread presence abroad, due to tradition or to strategic objectives that they do not wish to relinquish. Certainly the institution of a European diplomatic service will not mean the disappearance of the member states’ embassies. From this comes the hypothesis of a “representation of variable geometry.”

It seems that the true problem on a national level is the view that the creation of the European Service will lead to a reduction in the influence that nations have over consular affairs. Javier Solano approached the question pragmatically in his address to the Working Group for External Relations at the Convention in October 2002. He expressed the hope that a team of staff would be created, composed of national diplomats and functionaries from the Secretariat of the Council and from the Commission, for the profitable exchange of ideas, information and trust. The connection between the Commission and the Secretariat of the Council should be ultimately assured by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and the Security Policy, who holds both the position of vice-president of the Commission and that of the Secretary General of the Council. Thanks to the agreement negotiated by Solano and Barroso in 2005, the majority of member states agreed that the Service should be organized to include services connected to the CFSP of the Commission (DG RELEX) and services connected to the Council (policy unit, DG-E and Military Staff7). The idea of the EEAS becoming a third bureaucracy has been repeatedly dismissed by the European Parliament and as Eurodeputy Jo Leinen (PES) stated : “So people are wondering if the External Action Service will be a part of the Council or of the Commission. In this context it must be considered that delegations that could become embassies of the European Union still exist in many countries. In terms of organization and balance, it would be fair and appropriate if this Service was part of the Commission, rather than the Council.

Lastly, it must be remembered that the Lisbon Treaty, like the constitutional Treaty before it, envisages that the External Action Service will be composed of personnel from the national diplomatic services of member states, as well as functionaries from the two institutions. Regarding the rotation of personnel within the European External Action Service, the report done jointly by the General Secretariat and the Commission in June 2005 reached agreement only on the following points : regular rotation of staff ; a rejection of the principal of staff quotas based on nationality and a successful adoption instead of the principal of adequate representation and of geographic balance ; equality of all members ; nominations on merit ; appropriate selection procedures. Several analysts have warned that tensions could nevertheless emerge in the new negotiations regarding potential systems of rotation, which may aim to outline a “centre” and a “outer area” within the External Action Service, which could lead for example to the proposal that there should be a strict administrative and hierarchical separation between staff from the community institutions and those from Foreign Affairs Ministries. Potentially divisive tensions could emerge between member states, either due to different intentions regarding European integration or due to specific national interests or bureaucratic resistance. Even the Commission, with its specialist Directorates-General and its network of delegations, fears being turned into a mere vehicle of technical support due to intergovernmental interference in diplomatic action. Thus the Council, for its part, is looking to develop its own policy unit and to increase its role in the formulation of political objectives.

Working towards a framework decision

Besides the future political structures into which Mrs Ashton will incorporate the EEAS, the April deadline makes it necessary to work within fixed time limits and to reach a decision without any hitches. Therefore it may be necessary to exclude from the action those aspects concerning the reform of financial regulations and that of staff regulations, which the European Parliament could vote against, having the right of co-decision. In other words, in order to obtain a “framework” decision, it would be necessary to assign a team of functionaries to the EEAS, which does not include people from the Commission, the Council or from the diplomatic services of the member states. This would make it possible to bypass the most controversial political issues and make the EEAS operational immediately. On the other hand, there is the risk that creating the EEAS in two phases could result in the state of confusion and inefficiency in which European diplomacy currently finds itself being prolonged. As Henry Kissinger reminded us in Die Welt on Friday 6th May 2005, “Having a telephone number does not compensate for the lack of a common foreign policy. After all, what really matters is what you say when you answer the phone.”

Headline photo : www.flickr.com