The example of trade policy. There is no point judging something on mere intent. The Lisbon Treaty was subject to a lengthy process of negotiations and ratification, which sometimes produced a number of incidents impacting on all the different national parliaments. The creation of the post of high representative for foreign policy (this role simultaneously incorporates the role of vice-president of the Commission, president of the Council and head of the European External Action Service) produces an overlapping remit that is completely untenable. The convoluted construction that conferred these multiple roles on a single person is inefficient and a source of misunderstanding (see this column yesterday).
Even if we leave aside the conflicts unfolding in Libya and elsewhere, in addition to military considerations in general, the overall supervision that is supposed to be exercised by Catherine Ashton is nothing but a figment of the imagination. Karel De Gucht, the commissioner for trade, travels extensively and is incredibly busy. Nonetheless, one does not get the impression that his main concern is to request the opinion of Ms Ashton about the initiatives he undertakes. He is directly accountable to the Commission for his projects and respective activities. Obviously, he is also obliged to tackle a number of comments and misgivings thrown at him, particularly with regard to concessions made to third countries in the agricultural arena, but it is at the Commission where these matters are discussed. Ms Ashton, however, is not even able to regularly participate in the Commission's work, for which she is its vice- president. This is one work of fiction among a number of others.
Every commissioner has his own task. We might wonder why and how the EU allowed itself to be pulled into such a mechanism. The main reason is because the distribution of the different tasks at the Commission is essential but difficult to manage in relations with third countries. Each different commissioner is responsible for a specific sector and he cannot negotiate on behalf of his colleagues. The commissioner for trade cannot promise financial support to a non-EU country or make commitments on issues covered by transport; EU relations with developing countries are subject to special regimes or specific association agreements. Every commissioner jealously guards his own prerogatives. Nonetheless, each of them has to deal with a given interlocutor, who could possibly be the prime minister of a third country or another figure that has a comprehensive mandate. If the dialogue overshoots a specific remit, the European commissioner in question has to inform his respective interlocutor that a given aspect is not covered by him himself but by another colleague who should be contacted in this regard. The Commission is not able to decide on Community positions alone, either. This explains why there was a decision to confirm a multiplicity of different functions on a single person: vice-president of the Commission (with the supervision of commissioners in charge of the different aspects of relations with third countries); the presidency of the “Foreign Affairs Council”; responsibility for the common diplomatic service; and the role of the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy.
Inefficiency. This ultimately results in these cumulative tasks preventing Ms Ashton from being able to carry out any of these tasks efficiently. She almost never attends Commission meetings. There is nothing exclusive about the positions she takes on a number of important subjects: Van Rompuy, Barroso and Buzek publish their own positions too and they are usually a little more resounding. If they cover secondary aspects it is only the addressees or those who are directly affected who provide comments about these positions. Sensitive areas are not covered by her and a number of government leaders have made this explicitly clear to her. When Ms Ashton is described as the “EU minister for foreign affairs”, she is quick to correct this inappropriate definition. The body she presides over consists of diplomats (member states or Community staff) and we have recently discovered again to what extent political leaders consider that it is not the diplomats who develop foreign policy; they are at the service of those who decide and provide them with the necessary elements to make their decisions. This is how it is at a national level (even if the diplomats sometimes prove rebellious) and it will be the same at a European level.
Responsible for a single role. Everything above ought to lead us to the conclusion which was already indicated in yesterday's column. Ms Ashton should play an effective, comprehensible and single role: heading the European External Action Service (EEAS), participating in international meetings in this role, taking positions and publishing declarations in keeping with her appropriate responsibilities. This is not easy because the Lisbon Treaty and other texts exist but I believe that it is the only way of finding an exit strategy to the current confusion about the different roles and responsibilities. (F.R./transl.fl)