Brussels, 09/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - The President of the Commission, José Manuel Barosso, and the EU High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, are to present a progress report to the European Council of 16 and 17 June on work underway on the future "European External Action Service" (EEAS, hereafter referred to as diplomatic service), the creation of which is provided for by the European Constitution. With the prevailing uncertainty on the entry into force of the Constitution after the no votes in France and the Netherlands, the European Council will not take too much time over this report, but will focus on whether and how the Constitution can still be saved. The reference the conclusions of the European Council may make to the diplomatic service will depend, therefore, on the results of the debate held by the leaders on the future of the Constitution and the continuing process of ratification. It is worth noting that after the French no, Mr Solana immediately called upon the Member States to continue their preparatory work on the diplomatic service, irrespective of all doubts about the ratification of the Constitution. "There is no doubt at all but sooner or later, the EU will have the European diplomatic service. The sooner we start work on it, the better prepared we will be when it enters into force", he said (see EUROPE 8957). The summit's debate should lead to more precise indications on how determined the Member States are to move forward with preparations for the service, and their willingness to implement various parts of the Constitution (including the diplomatic service), should the Constitutional Treaty not be able to enter into force.
After an initial note by Mr Solana and Mr Barosso in March (see EUROPE 8904), the Luxembourg Presidency, the Commission and the Council Secretariat held bilateral consultations with the Member States plus Bulgaria and Romania. The European Parliament took position in a resolution of 26 May, calling for the service to be integrated into the structures of the Commission, from an organisational, administrative and budgetary point of view (EUROPE 8956). EUROPE has reason to believe that on the basis of all these reflections, the progress report by Mr Barosso and Mr Solana and will state:
Institutional anchorage. There is a broad consensus between the Member States that the diplomatic service should be a "sui generis" creation, in other words a new kind of institution placed under the authority of the future EU Foreign Minister, but with "close links" to both the Council and the Commission. Most Member States have nothing against the possibility for the service also to have recourse to support services provided by the Council Secretariat and/or by the Commission. Many of them stressed the need to minimise or avoid altogether "duplication of effort" and to reduce costs. All the Member States agreed that the objective of the service should be to help the European Foreign Minister to carry out his or her many tasks, including that of Vice Commission President;
Organisation of the diplomatic service. The joint Barosso/Solana paper of last March suggested that the service could comprise: all services currently coming under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), including military personnel; -geographic "desks" covering all countries and regions of the world; -diplomatic "desks" covering subjects such as human rights, the fight against terrorism, non-proliferation and relations between the EU and international organisations (the UN in particular). The debate held in the Council in recent weeks has shown that: a small number of Member States feel that the competencies of the diplomatic service should be limited to ESDP and CFSP; another group (which is also in the minority) is pleading in favour of the service's competencies to be extended to include fields currently covered by the European Commission, such as enlargement, the European neighbourhood policy and the development policy. However nobody is calling for trade policy (also a Commission competency) to be included under the diplomatic service. Most Member States have taken stance somewhere between the two extremes, with the majority tending to favour a service covering at least the current activities of the Council Secretariat and of the Commission's "External Relations" Directorate General. Many delegations also feel that the Council's military personnel should be part of the diplomatic service, although certain countries have entered reservations on this. The Member States opinions are also divided on whether the situation centre (SITCEN, the EU's early warning system in the field of crisis management) should be
included in the diplomatic service. There is, however, agreement on the need for the service's geographic and thematic "desks" to avoid duplicating work already carried out by the Council and the Commission;
Many Member States would prefer the Council's preparatory working groups in the field of external relations, currently tasked with issues under the first pillar of the Treaty, also to come under the rotating Council Presidencies in future. However, working groups which deal exclusively with CFSP issues should be chaired by a representative of the future diplomatic service, a large number of Member States feel;
There is broad consensus on the option for the Commission's external delegations to third countries to become " European Union delegations", under the authority of the future European Foreign Minister. This does not, however, mean that all staff employed in these EU delegations will necessarily have to become part of the diplomatic service, because those dealing with trade or development issues, for example, will continue to come under the aegis of the European Commission, which will remain competent in these fields. A majority of the Member States (pending a forthcoming and more detailed examination of this complex issue) is in favour of allowing the EU delegations to also carry out various extra competencies in the field of consular protection and visas.