Confusion of roles. The dramatic events in Libya and elsewhere indicate that the role played by Catherine Ashton in the EU's institutional setup creates both a legal and political problem. The changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty have improved the way the EU functions democratically overall but there is one exception. The accumulation of functions contained in this strange position -: Vice-President of the European Commission, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Head of the European External Action Service, Head of the Foreign Affairs Council - is both unmanageable and incomprehensible. Catherine Ashton is responsible for all these disparate tasks but she is not personally responsible for them. The failure results from the confusion of her overlapping roles. The system is not working because it is unable to function.
The plethora of media reporting on the activities of Ms Ashton also speaks volumes: she is often described as the “European Minister for Foreign Affairs”, which she is not. On a number of occasions she has attempted to point this out but without success. She should be responsible for one task and not four. She should be responsible for organising the work of the EEAS (European External Action Service) so that all the different levels of the European authorities are provided with the appropriate information for managing EU foreign policy. All the other tasks are superfluously absurd - regularly attending Commission meetings, for which she is theoretically the vice-president, is not possible for her; her relations with the commissioners responsible for the many areas linked to EU external relations (trade policy, relations with associated countries, funding third countries, etc) remain confused. The attempt to codify this over complicated situation has also produced one of the most contorted texts in Community jurisprudence.
A decision that changes nothing. I am referring to the Council Decision of 26 July 2010, published in the Official Journal L 201 of 3 August 2010. This text recognises that the mandate of Ms Ashton is to head foreign and security policy and to oversee EU external action. Does she therefore have the right of scrutiny over the activities of European commissioners who have specific responsibilities? The response is clearly in the affirmative because the Council decision affirms that as vice-president Ms Ashton must fulfil Commission responsibilities in external relations and coordinate other aspects of the Union's external action. The EEAS (mentioned above), which is directly accountable to Ms Ashton, works with Commission staff and helps them ensure coherency between the different areas of EU external action, as well as between these areas and other policies. The EEAS participates in the work and preparatory procedures the Commission prepares in these domains. Ms Ashton ensures the political coordination of EU external action and the Council decision lists the instruments covered by this coordination: the European development fund, the European neighbourhood and partnership instrument, the stability instrument and so forth. Financial implementation is within the remit of the Commission but is under the authority of the high representative in her role as vice-president of the Commission.
In the context of current dramatic events. There is not much of a relationship between current events and what is written in this convoluted Council decision. The problem consists of providing coherency to EU foreign and defence policy in these dramatically unfolding events. Last week when international decisions were made with regard to Libya we saw this problem arise and we see it on a daily basis when action is required. The most effective response would be to gradually put into practice the possibilities provided by the Lisbon Treaty and the development of a common defence policy between member states that are in favour of one.
The same goes for trade… even if military aspects are left aside and we refer to other areas covered by the Council decision, such as trade or development aid, we see that Ms Ashton is unable to participate in Commission meetings regularly, for which she is theoretically the vice-president. The commissioners responsible for sectors she is supposed to be supervising, such as trade negotiations, do not give the impression that they submit their projects to her before presenting them at the Commission or inform her of their intentions in advance.
It is, however, true that there are problems that involve questions related to coherency and the collegiate nature of institutions. This column will return to discuss this matter tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)