Brussels, 22/10/2009 (Agence Europe) - The report by Elmar Brok (EPP, Germany) on the implementation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) received 424 votes in favour, 94 against, with 30 abstentions. The vote accurately reflects the broad consensus at the European Parliament in support of a service that respects the Community method, is integrated into the European Commission administrative structure, funded out of the EU budget and subject to democratic Parliamentary control. Although the treaty stipulates that Parliament only has an “opinion” on setting up the EEAS (contrary to the Commission, which has to give its agreement), MEPs left no doubt that they wanted to have their word on the structure, organisation and functioning of what they consider as one of the most important innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. Without explicit decision-making power on the diplomatic service, the EP intends to use its prerogatives in European Commission renewal related issues to make its voice heard. This will mean that during the hearings (planned for the end of November and beginning of December) of future Commission members, MEPs will ask the high representative for foreign and security policy (who will also be Commission vice president and in this role will therefore require the EP's approval) to take a position on Parliament's demands. Mr Brok said on Wednesday, during the debate, that the European Parliament would not give its approval to the high representative unless it took the EP's concerns into account at the beginning of 2010 when it makes its formal proposal on the setting up of the EEAS. The rapporteur also pointed out that the EP would have its word (co-decision procedure) in the modifications needed in the financial regulation and the regulation on the status of EU civil servants. In an effort to avoid “wasting precious time and political controversies” regarding the form the EEAS should take after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, MEPs recommend that the Council and Commission conclude a “political agreement with Parliament on all questions at an early stage in affairs”.
The text adopted on Thursday by the EP in the plenary session has almost not changed at all with regard to the draft report approved on Monday evening (19 October) by the foreign affairs committee (EUROPE 10002). MEPs are therefore requesting that a service in its own right on an organisational and budget level be integrated into the Commission's administrative structure, “which would guarantee total transparency”. Headed by a director general (placed under the authority of the HR), the EP considers that the service should be divided into several “directorates” with each of them being responsible for an important strategic domain in the Union's external relations. MEPs are proposing that other directorates would be in charge of questions related to security and defence; civil crisis management; and multilateral and horizontal issues including questions on human rights and administrative affairs. Nonetheless, some of the current Commission's external relations domains will not be affected by the EEAS: trade; enlargement; development; humanitarian aid; and human rights. MEPs consider that Commission delegations in third countries, as well as liaison offices of the Council and EU special representative, should be merged, in order to set up “Union Embassies”, headed by EEAS personnel under the authority of the HR. The EP is also proposing to examine the extent to which it will be possible to gradually confer consular services on the future Union embassies. The EP suggest that a “college of European diplomats” could be set up which, in close cooperation with the competent bodies of the member states, would provide training to Union and member state civil servants based on completely harmonised lines. MEPs also want all EEAS personnel to have the same permanent or temporary status and obligations, wherever they are from. Personnel would be appointed on merit, expertise and excellence and come (in a relevant and proportionate measure) via an open and transparent mechanism from the Commission, Council and national diplomatic services. The HR should also be committed to informing EP foreign affairs and development committees about senior posts at the EEAS, and agree to the committee organising hearings of candidates it believes will be useful. Ultimately, the EEAS should also ensure that within the EU embassies, the European Parliament has guaranteed cooperation references (responsible, for example, with encouraging parliamentary contact in third countries).
EEAS must be “effective, transparent and democratic”, Elmar Brok says
During the plenary session debate on Wednesday 21 October, rapporteur Elmar Brok noted that, when the Convention (which prepared the intergovernmental conference on the European constitution) called
for the creation of the EEAS, it wanted to make EU foreign policy “more effective, more transparent and more democratic”, not to make it more intergovernmental. The EP could not, therefore, accept that the European diplomatic service become a “new bureaucracy, somewhere between Commission and Council, leading its life independently, far from all democratic control,” Brok said, calling for the “Community model” to be respected. Benita Ferrero-Waldner gave assurances that the European Commission backed the EP's “general approach”, but she felt that, with it being sui generis, the EEAS “will be neither intergovernmental nor entirely based on the Community model”. The Commission was “open” to the idea of giving the new EU Embassies consular duties, “even though this may take some time”. Alojz Peterle (EPP, Slovenia) welcomed the Brok report as a “proper reflection of the EP position”. Italian MEP Roberto Gualtieri, for the S&D, said that his group also shared the rapporteur's opinion, and he said that the service should be integrated into the administrative and budgetary structure of the Commission. The same went for UK Liberal Andrew Duff (ALDE), who expressed the hope that all, even the large, member states take the EEAS seriously and send it their best diplomats. For the Greens, Estonian Indrek Tarand expressed his group's support for the main demands of the Brok report. The creation of the EEAS did not meet with the universal approval of MEPs: Ashley Fox (European Conservatives and Reformers, UK) said that, rather than becoming involved in fresh expense, money should be given back to member states. From the same group, Charles Tannock (UK) demanded that external action be complementary to bilateral diplomatic relations, and not replace them. Delegations must not under any circumstances be called Embassies, he said. On behalf of the GUE/NGL, German Helmut Scholz expressed reservations about the way things were done, behind closed doors, with no democratic debate. Who would monitor the new body, wondered a number of MEPs, from Dane Morten Messerschmidt (ELD) to Briton Andrew Brons (non-attached), calling for greater transparency and democracy. Some strongly expressed their opposition, in particular UK MEP David Campbell (EFD) who sees here the beginnings of European superstate: at the same time, curiously, he slammed the creation “not of a United States of Europe, but of a new Yugoslavia”. Italian Carlo Casini (EPP), while noting that, for the moment, there was only an interim text, said that he believed in this proposal. This opinion was shared by Hungarian Zita Gurmai (S&D), who, expressing her pride in the fine work done by the foreign affairs committee, said that the proposal was the most significant innovation in the Lisbon Treaty. The text opened the start of a new era for the EU, claimed Annemie Neyts (ALDER, Belgium): many diplomats would, only a short time ago, have been up in arms at the idea of all being put under the authority of the high representative. We are for the proposal, on condition that Parliament can exercise effective control over it, said German Green Franziska Brantner, calling for the emphasis to be put on peace keeping. It was important, stressed former Commissioner Louis Michel (ALDE), to set clear political priorities to avoid duplication of work done by member states' foreign services and to provide a specific service that brings added value. Development aid planning must remain the responsibility of the appropriate commissioner, working in coordination with the high representative. Consistency would be fundamental to the success of the initiative, argued György Schöpflin (EPP, Hungary): if the attention of the various countries were directed towards different issues, the impact of the new service would be diluted. The new service should also work in cooperation with the other institutions which have an external dimension. Closing the debate on behalf of the Council Cecilia Malmström said she was sure the high representative (“he or she”, she stated) would decide the details of how the EEAS was to work in cooperation with the Parliament; the rapporteur Elmar Brok had acknowledged that, even though the Parliament should have some input, foreign policy had to be led by the Executive, just as in member states. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner gave assurances that the Commission firmly intended this operation to be a success, taking account of the Parliament demands on human rights and equal opportunities. (H.B./L.G./transl.rt)