Brussels, 15/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - The hearing on the future European diplomatic service (“European External Action Service”, EEAS), which the committee on institutional affairs of the EP (chaired by Jo Leinen) held on Tuesday, confirmed the difference of opinion on the new service, particularly on the institutional links it should have with the Commission and the exact definition of its scope. All of these questions are still waiting for clear answers, which they have not yet had either from the Council or the Commission, as demonstrated by the joint working document drawn up by Javier Solana and José Manuel Barroso (see EUROPE of 9 March, p.4). Tuesday's hearing- though interesting in many respects- allowed little progress on the points to be discussed in coming weeks to prepare for the mid-term report Mr Solana and Mr Barroso are to present to the European Council of June. Coreper examined the dossier for the first time on 10 March and, according to Luxembourg Presidency sources, the paper was generally well received.
Institutional difference on the EEAS stem largely from the fact that the Treaty defines only the broad outlines of the diplomatic service, “thus leaving a lot of room for manoeuvre” on its practical implementation, explained Jim Cloos of the Council's Secretariat General, who is working closely with Javier Solana. “We need to use the Constitutional Treaty as a basis, what it says and not what some people or others would like it to say”, he said. The Treaty has created a specific legal basis to create the diplomatic service, “which, in my view, seems to plead in favour of a new service which is fully integrated into neither the Commission's services nor the Council”, Cloos added. At the same time, “there is no question of creating something completely separate from the Council and the Commission, like a new institution, because this is not what the Treaty intends”. The Treaty is very clear on the “multiple roles”' of the future European foreign minister, says Cloos: “the person holding this position will have two or three hats to wear”, because at the same time, he or she will be a vice-president of the Commission, President of the External Relations Council, will have to ensure the coherence of the EU's external actions, take on the Commission's external responsibilities and coordinate the external planks of other Community policies. On the other hand, “the Treaty has not unified the duties” or the decision-making procedures which in themselves are still either Community or intergovernmental procedures. “It is therefore neither a case of communitising the defence policy nor of intergovernmentalising the Community aspects of external relations”, Cloos underlined. The EEAS will help the future European minister to fulfil his or her mandate and have access to political analysis and advise which is correct and unified, on everything happening in the world. The service will need “geographical desks” for this, and single thematic desks, whose work should not be duplicated by any other service in either the Commission or the Council. “Key Community fields”, such as trade, development and accession negotiations will remain outside this diplomatic service, said Mr Cloos. “It is neither necessary nor desirable to include these fields in the diplomatic service, because that would be creating a monster”, said Mr Cloos. We must also replace the Commission's delegations in third countries with Community delegations, under the authority of the European foreign minister. It would be “logical” to include these Community delegations in the diplomatic service, “but the question has not yet been raised”, Cloos noted.
The European Commission's representative, Graham Avery, stressed the need to respect the Commission's fields of competency. On the institutional status of the EEAS, the Commission is still quite reticent. “Should it be stand-alone, attached to the Commission or the Council, or to neither? I know that many MEPs are in favour of including it wholly in the Commission, but for the time being, we have left this point open”, said Mr Avery. “For example, if the EEAS includes military personnel, how can it be a Commission service? Furthermore, if the diplomatic service is to coordinate the Commission's external actions, how could it be outside the Commission?” he asked. “For these reasons, we will continue our reflection to seek an appropriate sui generis solution”. Other questions remain open, and the Commission is still in a “listening phase”: how many staff, selected according to which criteria? What should the budget be? However, the Commission feels that it is clear that the Community delegations would have to be part of the EEAS, said Mr Avery. On this point, German Social Democrat Klaus Hänsch said that Community delegations should come under the aegis of the foreign minister, but as a vice-president of the Commission, not included in the EEAS.
Elmar Brok (CDU), Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, agrees there is a need to find a sui generis solution for the new service “but this does not automatically mean it should be autonomous”. In his view, if the Community method is to be saved, then the EEAS (European External Action Service) should be integrated into the Commission. The fact that one is now seeking to “calm” the supporters of a strong Commission by suggesting exclusion from EEAS of trade, development and enlargement is not at all reassuring and is even contradictory, Brok states. “Trade, development policy, assistance to third countries and accession negotiations are important aspects of Community action and should be included in the coordination of the EU's common external policy”. Consequently, unless one wants to amputate the Commission's key competences, it will be necessary to integrate the diplomatic service in its services. Even if trade, development and enlargement are excluded from the EEAS, the development of EU foreign policy over the next years will result in the Commission being entirely emptied of all its internal competences, including those it currently holds - which is of course “unacceptable”. In such a scenario, the Commission would be no more than an “internal market machine”. Mr Brok therefore suggests that the EEAS be integrated into the Commission at the “administrative, budgetary and organic level”. However, in fields where the Council has exclusive competence for external actions, the Commission and the European diplomatic service should not be able to hamper implementation of decisions taken by Member States. “In such cases, the Commission should loyally carry out the decisions taken by Council”, Mr Brok admits.
The vice-president of the Italian Senate (and former Foreign Minister and Member of the Convention), Lamberto Dini, contradicted Mr Brok. “An autonomous and effective diplomatic service does not necessarily weaken the Commission. On the contrary, if it is a truly integrated structure, the new service will allow the Commission to strengthen its role in the activities that currently come under the second pillar, where the Commission feels neglected today”, Mr Dini said. The Commission runs the risk of being marginalised if it remains attached to the competences of the first pillar and if it does not raise the challenge of extending its role and influence to the fields under the second pillar, Mr Dini explained. He also refuted the fear expressed by Mr Brok that “intergovernmental creation” of the EEAS would cancel out any chance of bringing it within Community scope in the future. “We should recall that, in the history of European integration, many intergovernmental solutions have finally been absorbed and brought under Community competence”, he pointed out.