Europe's road to a common foreign policy will be a long one. The current phase consists of implementing the instrument that will allow this policy to be defined and applied on a gradual basis. Certain differences are understandable (see this column yesterday) but let's not forget how many aspects are already in the Community sphere: trade policy, accession negotiations, and so on and so forth. The European Parliament carries out its role by exerting pressure to promote a European character for all elements in this policy, by strengthening the role of the Community institutions in relation to those of national governments and by way of developing majority voting procedures. The EU, however, as Herman Van Rompuy emphasised, consists of 27 member states with each of them having their own history and traditions. These general comments and affirmations of principle can be clarified by providing examples.
The Kosovo example. And here we have one from the possible examples: what would Parliament's line be if it had responsibility for deciding on recognition of Kosovo? This new state has been recognised by the majority of member states, not by all of them, and those that have the most misgivings about it are led by Spain, the country that currently holds the presidency of the Council. Would it be appropriate for the EU to decide on a common position by majority voting? Kosovo, as we know, proclaimed its own independence without the consensus of the state of which it formed a part, Serbia. Spain cannot support such a procedure that would subsequently be invoked by political forces demanding the independence of Catalonia, the Basque Country and other Spanish regions. The EU will have to respond as a single entity to situations of this kind but it is not yet the right time, even more so given that the case of Kosovo raises a number of other questions: how can self-proclaimed independence be reconciled with the position held by the authorities that demands respect for the integral nature of its territory, and the rejection of demands that zones where Serbs are in the majority be allowed to become part of the country of origin again? Why is the EU rejecting the possibility of exercising the freedom of choice for a Serbian or Croatian zone in Bosnia-Herzegovina? These are the complex situations facing EU common foreign policy, which means that this policy will only be able to be carried out on a gradual piecemeal basis. Certain simplifications and calls for majority procedures are prompted by facile political demagogy and are, at the very least, rather premature.
An ambiguous status. The previous considerations ought to help promote a certain mutual understanding of the respective positions in the discussions regarding the composition and functioning of the common diplomatic service. It is also necessary to take into account the unusual and strange status conferred on the person in charge of heading the EEAS. Catherine Ashton is at the same time president of the Council, the vice president of the Commission and high representative of the CFSP and ESDP. Where should she be located in the institutional framework?
The legal analyses are multifold and sometimes contradictory. Some of them underline the role of the high representative, in charge of leading foreign policy on the Council's mandate and on which it is beholden. As a result, there is no ambiguity at all, according to Pierre-Henri d'Argenson (writing in the IFRI publication) that in this role, Ms Ashton only has autonomy at the Commission in its relationship with the Council: her role as vice president of the Commission gives her authority over this institution's services responsible for external action but without having to submit it to “the collegiality of the Commission or the authority of its president”. Ms Ashton made the symbolic choice of locating her office at the Commission and, in her January hearing at the EP, she insisted on her independence as a commissioner when working with the member states. According to several legal experts, her status is ambiguous because both the Community and inter-governmental instruments will be her responsibility. This is perhaps the crucial reason for Parliament's request to closely involve the management of the EEAS with European commissioners responsible for neighbourhood policy, cooperation development and humanitarian aid. We also know how many commissioners are more or less directly linked to external policy, particularly those responsible for trade and energy. Moreover, their status as commissioners makes them autonomous from the Council and without the ambiguities linked to the status of Ms Ashton. The amount of budgetary funding depends on the different portfolios and the importance of this aspect is obvious.
It will not be possible for the status of the EEAS to totally unravel this example. We can understand Parliament's concern not to abandon its principles. Compromises that are likely to safeguard the future without hindering the birth of the EEAS are needed. This is difficult but it is necessary.
(F.R./transl.fl)