Four solemn chapters. I have rarely, in my experience spanning several decades of Community documents, come across a text as imbalanced as the recent European Commission communication on strengthening the role of Europe in the world (published in No. 2438 of our EUROPE/Documents series). The main thrust of it (four out of the five chapters) illustrates the new global challenges Europe has to face, the advantages it has and the demand for greater efficiency and coherency in European action. It is a strategic text. To those who claim that the EU is inward-looking, it points out that from its original six members, it now stands at 25 States, soon to be 27, then 28, and this without even mentioning its “neighbourhood policy”. To those who talk of European egoism, the Commission can answer that the EU provides more than half of all development and humanitarian aid in the world and that it is by far the main importer of products (including food) from poor countries. The avant-garde role of Europe should not be forgotten either, in the role it plays in environmental protection.
…and a few bureaucratic conclusions. These are some of the facts that it is useful to point out to global public opinion and even more so to EU citizens themselves. They're perfect for speeches, information brochures and school documents. But for a communication addressed to Heads of government, to be read by civil servants, parliamentarians and some modest commentators like me, what counts, are the conclusions. And from this point of view the imbalance between the solemnity of the premise and the bureaucratic character of the fifth chapter on actions to be taken, is alarming. What the Commission calls “concrete measures” consists in: improving how the internal Commission work groups function; better definition of the strategic priorities; deepening reports and analyses; strengthening collaboration between the Commission, High Representative, Council bodies and the European Parliament. I quote, find “new more efficient means to exchange reports and other information on a basis of reciprocity”, develop “closer coordination between the personnel of the Council secretariat and the Commission”, and so on. Timely initiatives, for dealing with the petty jealousies, misunderstanding and other petty-mindedness that arises should be sorted out by appropriate measures and means but they do not constitute the crowning glory of a document for the European Council, that is supposed to be celebrating Europe's global role.
The real text exists. In fact, the attempt to improve Europe's presence in the world already exists and is part of the draft Constitutional treaty, which includes: a European minister of foreign affairs who would at the same time be vice president of the Commission; a long term president (two and a half years) of the European Council and who would represent the CFSP at the highest level; a European diplomatic service for external relations. This project has been blocked. We have to be satisfied with modest measures and bureaucratic improvements that do not even deserve press conferences or official debates at the Summit.
What's there to be surprised about if the echo to this initiative was a modest one, indeed sometimes slightly sarcastic and where at the last Summit it received nothing but a banal paragraph in acknowledgement (it goes under the No. 25 heading) calling for proposed measures to be examined and support for the action of the High Representative to be backed up? Asked before the Summit about Javier Solana's reaction to the Commission document, his spokesperson's reply came in two points: a) Mr Solana has not had the time to deal with it because he's been very busy recently with his Iran mission; b) the Treaty clearly confers the conduct of foreign policy to Member States, according to procedures included in the Council framework. Mr Barroso was asked in the press room about the provision for occasionally inviting Mr Solana to Commission decision-making when the latter deems it useful (said to be linked by provisions in the treaty). He explained the following, “I cannot attribute a competency that does not exist” (allusion to the fact that the place of vice president of the Commission for the future minister of foreign affairs has been frozen with the Constitution).
It's all down to the Constitution that the current level of ambition is distinctly modest. But this modesty has not prevented some commentators from saying that Mr Barroso could have asked, in practice, “diplomatic powers” for himself. I don't believe this is really the case but it is an impression that needs to be developed, together with a few explanations about the current situation.
(F.R.)