It is Europe that is speaking. The conclusions of the European Council of 16 September on foreign policy, were drowned out by the media and polemic regarding the Roma and illegal immigration and were, to a large extent, ignored: too vague for the pundits and, a fortiori, for public opinion. Nonetheless, Herman Van Rompuy had his reasons for raising this debate at the highest level by underlining relations with Europe's “strategic partners”. The Community system requires that within the framework of formal meetings with these countries, the EU be represented by the presidents of the European Council and the Commission. Mr Van Rompuy is, nevertheless, aware that neither his name nor that of Mr Barroso can sufficiently draw the attention of the international media and that of people in other continents. Ms Merkel, Mr Sarkozy (with or without his wife), Mr Cameron and a number of others are much better at obtaining time on TV and their photographs in the American, Chinese or other publications. At the same time, however, these figures are aware that they have no real weight in the world unless they speak in the name of Europe.
Well then, what's to be done? The answer is to be found in the summit's conclusions: these also indicate clearly and as officially as possible that the positions of Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso are not personal positions but have been prepared and put together in common. It is Europe that is speaking. Mr Van Rompuy emphasised this on Thursday evening on behalf of the institution over which he presides. I would say that his remarks were clear and almost didactic.
The president said. I will quote the passages in the text which to me appeared the most important and explicit in the declaration that the president of the European Council made at the end of the meeting:
“The Lisbon Treaty requires the European Council to define the Union's strategic interests and give general strategic direction to the work of other institutions. I am glad that the heads of state and government today all agreed to take this up and deepen their involvement in the EU's foreign policy.
We therefore briefly talked about how to make the best use of the Lisbon Treaty, with the new External Action Service; how to make sure that what is done from Brussels and from the capitals goes in the same direction; how to coordinate better between the different actors in Brussels; how to bring together the different aspects of our relationship with partners, for instance during summits, in areas such as economy, climate, values and security.
Our key messages should be mandated by the European Council, prepared and implemented by the Foreign Affairs Council, the Commission and the high representative.
We have precise ideas on how to position ourselves vis-à-vis China. So thanks to today's discussion, when the president of the Commission and I meet the Chinese prime minister in Brussels three weeks from now, we do not speak just for 'Brussels', we can speak on behalf of the 27.”
Parliament must remain vigilant. Mr Van Rompuy indicated that the same exercise would be carried out next month in preparation for the G20 summit and the EU-US summit. The conclusions of 16 September indicate the first orientations for these two dossiers. This column mentioned the main thrust of them in EUROPE 10217 and our publication the day before this provided a report on the discussion. The paragraphs making up point 7 in the conclusions are worth reading very closely, given the recent developments involving the possibility of direct negotiations with the US on public subsidies to the aeronautical industry (the Airbus-Boeing affair) or China's new restrictive trade policy (oriented towards preference for national production when making public purchases). Even in these contexts, it will be up to the European Council to define the main guidelines in the EU positions.
Should the European Parliament be wary about all this? I believe that it should consider that given that the heads of state and government are involved, at a national level and between themselves, it is positive that the discussion is becoming Community-orientated (the European Council is an EU institution). Even Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit should take this into account, while remaining on their guard.
Looking again at the two examples quoted above, Community countries that have an aeronautical industry or are major exporters to China are involved in all the latest developments and it is positive that they are discussing them at a Community institution, with the participation of all member states. Parliament itself, given its competencies (which are considerable in both the trade and industrial policy arenas), would be able to express itself better if its interlocutor were Herman Van Rompuy, who would have to keep it informed and with whom it would have the possibility of holding regular discussions. (F.R./transl.fl)