Valid reasons. Let's not dramatise the differences between the Community institutions over the creation of the European diplomatic service. It is quite normal that the new institutional balance resulting from the Lisbon Treaty creates a lot of difficulties: it is a massive change! The case of the European External Action Service (EEAS) is particularly complex: it is a completely new body, which is both Community-based and inter-governmental; the functions to be performed by the person who heads it are unprecedented (at the same time she is Vice President of the Commission and President of the Foreign Affairs Council); the European Commission must retain its specific competencies in foreign policy and development cooperation; the European Parliament will naturally use its greater powers to assert itself in the areas from which it was previously almost totally excluded (apart from voting for resolutions). National parliaments paying particular attention to ensure that their competencies are not compromised. Each of the different players therefore has its own reasons to get its voice heard.
The General Affairs Council is expected to give its opinion on Monday 26 April on how the EEAS should be organised and on how it should function. Final approval, however, is subordinated to the opinion of the Parliament and the latter has drawn a link between this project and the two parallel text on which its approval is essential: budgetary aspects and the status of EEAS personnel. In practice, the EP also has the right of veto on the whole of this dossier (EUROPE 10118 and 10119). Has everything stalled, then?
An “instrument”. It is in this connection that wisdom ought to play a part. A calm and objective evaluation should be made of the effective powers of Ms Ashton and the EEAS. She is not a European minister for foreign affairs. Her task is one of preparing the European positions to be defined by the Council and European Council, by drawing on the assistance of the diplomatic service. Herman Van Rompuy declared that “it is not the minister for foreign affairs who heads foreign policy; one should therefore not overestimate the importance of the EEAS; it will be a structured instrument, but it will remain an instrument”. He added that “we have new instruments thanks to the Lisbon Treaty but we cannot forget our history: 27 countries with their own history and traditions. If we start from the principle that we need a common foreign policy, we will miss everything. We have to implement some policies, find agreement on Iran and the Middle East and identify compromises on a case-by-case basis, according to the different themes”. He is therefore reiterating what he had explicitly explained previously with regard to economic government (see our most recent newsletter): European foreign policy will be developed by the European Council and will not be a single comprehensive entity but will be introduced gradually.
Accomplishments to safeguard. Keeping the previous considerations in mind, the divergences regarding the EEAS are not expected to be insurmountable. Whether its structure should be based on a Secretary General or otherwise, the appropriate formula will be found. Other questions are more fundamental, particularly the legal nature of the EEAS: should it be part of the Commission's services, as requested by the Parliament? This would be difficult for member states to accept because the CFSP and ESDP will retain an intergovernmental character. Nonetheless, it is necessary to safeguard the Community character of two fundamental aspects: trade policy and development aid, the responsibility for which must remain in the hands of the European Commission because in these areas it is necessary to make decisions in common. It is obvious that the conditions for obtaining access for third country goods to the EU can only be uniform and no national remit in this area is foreseen at all. Nevertheless, let's not forget that the goal of the EEAS is not to make decisions but to prepare those that will be taken by the Council, European Council or the European Commission itself, according to Community procedures for which, in the trade arena, the opinion of the Parliament and majority voting are planned.
Between principles and a certain pragmatism. Without abandoning any principles, a certain degree of pragmatism is required. It is logical and even positive that the Parliament and, notably, its rapporteurs, Elmar Brok and Guy Verhofstadt, are particularly attentive to defending parliamentary prerogatives (thus the democratic nature of the EU) and to keeping the institutional balance. A number of considerations, however, cannot be ignored. The Council and European Council are also legitimate Community institutions. This column will return to this issue tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)