Brussels, 22/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament announced victory on Tuesday 22 June, the day after agreement in principle was reached in Madrid by the three EP rapporteurs with Catherine Ashton, Miguel Ángel Moratinos and Maroš Šefèoviè on the creation of a new EU diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS). Elmar Brok (EPP), Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE) and Roberto Gualtieri (S&D) are delighted at having “saved the Community method” in the way the EEAS will operate in the future, thereby preventing “rampant inter-governmentalism” of development and neighbourhood tools (currently managed by the European Commission alone) which in future will be incorporated into the diplomatic corps. At a press conference, Brok said that they had not won the argument on all their demands but had managed to achieve the most important thing, assurance that the EEAS would have “EU identity” in that at least 60% of the diplomatic corps' diplomats will be permanent EU officials, and its operating budget would be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny rules. The European Commission will continue to be responsible for managing all the foreign action financial instruments, Brok explained. He said that the EEAS would not be able to decide on anything connected with the programming and management of financial instruments for development and neighbourhood matters, having the rôle of preparing decisions that will continue to be taken by the Commission. The role of the high representative/vice-president of the European Commission (HR/VP) will be to “coordinate” all policies but not actually decide on anything, he said. The fact that at least 60% of the diplomats would be EU officials would create loyalty and an esprit de corps in the diplomatic corps and would prevent member states from taking over, added Brok. He said that this meant the European Parliament would be able to endorse the setting up of the EEAS. The draft Brok and Verhofstadt reports will be submitted to EP committees on Wednesday 23 June, he said, who believes it might be possible for the diplomatic corps to be operational by 1 December 2010.
Guy Verhofstadt said the Madrid agreement was nothing like Ashton's original plan (to set up a small, inter-governmental diplomatic corps). Verhofstadt said that MEPs had managed to change the mindset of the other EU institutions and to safeguard and boost the Community method. He welcomed the fact that the corps' operational budget would come under Section III of the EU's Budget and therefore be subject to EP scrutiny, and the administrative budget (over which the EP will not have scrutiny) will be subject to the same rules, to all intents and purposes as if it were part of Section III. Roberto Gualtieri welcomed the fact that EP had managed to turn the consultation procedure (on the initial decision to set up the EEAS) into a true “codecision procedure” in order to protect the Community method. Gualtieri said this might even turn out to be the first step in “communitarising” all foreign affairs issues in the EU, including the CFSP. The Greens Group at the EP also hailed the Madrid agreement but regretted that Ashton and the member states had not gone further and set up a “more ambitious” diplomatic corps.
Ashton's circles welcomed the deal, describing it as not so very different from the initial proposals of March 2020. The main thing is to have got “as broad as possible” an EEAS, with sufficient autonomy, explained sources close to the HR/VP on Tuesday, hoping that the European Parliament would approve the Madrid agreement at plenary early next month in time for the member states and the European Commission to be able to endorse the deal at the 26 July Foreign Affairs Council. If so (while awaiting the formal passing of legislation in the autumn), this would mean Ashton could start recruiting high-ranking staff in the summer. In the best case scenario, the new diplomatic corps would be operational by 1 December 2010.
The main aspects of the agreement in principle reached in Madrid in the form of a draft Council decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the EEAS, and two statements by Catherine Ashton to will be submitted to the EP next month - one on political accountability and one on the basic organisation of the EEAS central administration - are.
Status. The EEAS will be separate from the Commission and Council and will be a “functionally autonomous body” answering to the HR/VP. The attachment of the EEAS to the Commission, which the EP has long been clamouring, has been rejected.
Budget. The HR/VP “adopts the internal rules for the management of the corresponding administrative budget lines” but “operational expenditure shall remain within the Commission section of the budget.” “In order to ensure the budgetary transparency in the area of external action, of the Union, the Commission will transmit to the budgetary authority, together with the Draft EU Budget, a working document presenting, in a comprehensive way, all expenditure related to the external action of the Union.”
Replacements for the HR/VP. The EP call for a number of “political deputies” to be designated to represent Ashton when she is unable to be present at important meetings was taken up. However, it was stated that: - the HR/VP will be represented by one of three commissioners (development, neighbourhood or humanitarian aid) if the topic under discussion relates principally to areas that fall within the Community's field of competence -the three commissioners may also speak, as the need demands, on issues related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); - the HR/VP will be represented by the foreign minister of the country which holds the rotating Presidency of the EU (or one of the countries of the presidential trio) if the topic relates mainly or entirely to the CFSP.
Planning. The European Parliament feared that, through the diplomatic corps, member states would take over planning and the management of development instruments (EDF, etc), and the neighbourhood policy, which hitherto have been managed by the Commission. MEPs won a stipulation in the text which notes that the management of cooperation programmes outside the EU will be “under the responsibility of the Commission”. The HR/VP will ensure the “political coordination” of EU external action. It is also stated that “all proposals for decision (on external assistance instruments) will be prepared through Commission procedures and submitted to the Commission for decision”. With more particular regard to the European Development Fund (EDF), all proposals will be prepared “jointly” by the EEAS and the Commission “under the responsibility of the development commissioner”, before they, along with the HR/VP put them to the college of commissioners for decision.
Staffing. Once the Service has reached full capacity, at least 60% of the EEAS diplomatic staff (level AD) must be “permanent EU officials”. These will be largely officials from the Council Secretariat and from DG Relex and DG Development at the Commission who will be transferred to the EEAS on 1 January 2011 (this date has now been mentioned in the agreement). It was also agreed that at least one third of (AD) staff of the diplomatic corps will come from member states (national diplomats sent to the EEAS as temporary agents). This one third reserved for national diplomats should not be difficult to fill “since the new posts to be created (there's talk of 800 over the next three years) will go mainly to the member states,” it is said by those close to Ashton. The geographic balance among staff, so dear to the new member states, will not be ensured by quotas or any special recruitment formula which might have favoured these countries. However, there is provision in the review clause for the situation to be assessed in 2013. If necessary, further measures will be taken to ensure a better geographic balance.
Internal organisation. The internal structure of the EEAS is not part of the decision setting up the Service (otherwise the decision would have to be amended, with Parliament's opinion having to be sought, every time the structure is changed). Thus it is that the decision mentions only the basic structure of the central administration responsible for the day-to-day running of the EEAS, namely: - an executive secretary general to ensure EEAS operations, including its administrative and budgetary management; - two deputy general secretaries; - a director general for budget and administration. The Central administration of the Service will organised into a number of “directorates general” covering the Service's various geographical desks. Another DG, with responsibility for crisis management and planning, civil operations, the European Military Staff and the European Union Situation Centre (SITCEN) will be under the direct authority and responsibility of the HR. A separate DG will look after administration, budget, staffing, communication and security. (H.B./transl.fl/rt)