Deflating the theory. With several pages of apparently calm and objective reflection, Javier Solana has deflated one of the empty theories of Europe: "common strategies" for foreign policy. Not their intention, or their substance, but the practical use made of them to date. After the salutary and brave little paper by the CFSP High Commissioner, the Council will no longer be able to continue approving wordy and ineffective texts.
Agence EUROPE has made the "Solana paper" available to its readers (by reproducing it in No 2228 of the EUROPE/Documents series). The paper was intended to remain confidential but there were so many leaks that we believe it is better for us, and also for its author, for the public to read it as it was meant to be read and not just through summaries or comments. Our subscribers may therefore note with their own eyes that the judgement made is inexorable. Current Common Strategies only represent a rhetorical description and prolix of EU positions and guidelines towards a country (Russia, Ukraine) or a region (Mediterranean). These strategies are intended for publication, so each Member State wants to include the concept or concepts it is particularly keen on. The result is that the strategies are composed "by accumulation". They add nothing to the agreements or other instruments already concluded by the EU with the countries in question. They are suited to favourable climes but cannot be used in times of crisis, writes Mr Solana, as they do not contain any operational guidelines and it is difficult to revise them in the light of topical events. To this must be added institutional complications (linked to the fact that the strategies are adopted unanimously but can be implemented by majority vote). The conclusion reached is of unusual frankness for a Community document: the programmes resulting from the Strategies "have in practice fallen into the category of routine exercises to which little attention is paid".
Vigorous dusting. With the Solana-Patten duo responsible for European foreign policy, the EU has been lucky. They have shaken up this policy to give it a thorough dusting. The Commission Vice-President had begun with his two papers last June: - a "communication " to the Commission in a tone that was somewhat provoking and occasionally ironical, and the speech in Paris (both available in our series EUROPE/Documents No2193 and No 2194). The initial attitude shown by Chris Patten was, of course, still influenced by the image of an ineffective and corrupt European civil service, an image mainly fuelled by the British press. But he then understood that the blame for the delays and shortcomings in the implementation of EU foreign aid commitments did not entirely lie with the officials in Brussels - far from it. Mr Patten had above all clearly set out the competences of the Commission in this field and (already) denounced the ineffectiveness of Common Strategies. His reflections were at the origin of recent changes to the Council's doctrine on crisis prevention. It is reasonable to think that the Solana paper will also have a significant impact, making European foreign policy progress towards more efficiency and clarity.
The missing link. We consider there is still one section missing in the ongoing reflection: - that of "free trade areas" as a pillar of the agreements with third countries. The Commission has fortunately got over offering every kind of free trade: to Russia, to the United States .. But, we believe, even the free trade areas already promised (Mediterranean countries, Mercosur, etc.) must be subject to further reflection with the countries concerned. Pascal Lamy has already done and continues to do sensational work for changing the aims and modalities of the WTO trade rounds, so as to bring in real participation of developing countries, the multifunctional nature of agriculture and environmental and competition rules (even if the representatives of the "people of Seattle", drunk with their success, are not aware of this). We find it absurd that the principles one hopes to introduce at world level are not also valid for bilateral agreements and free trade areas, and we specifically intend to come back to this.
(F.R.)