Brussels, 12/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - The Lisbon Treaty which, when it comes to Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), takes up all the innovations of the draft European constitution, provides major instruments for making EU external action more effective, coherent and visible. Much, however, will depend upon the way it is interpreted and upon the practical implementation of the new provisions of the treaty, as well as on those holding the key positions. This was the main conclusion reached by the workshop on “Implications of the Lisbon Treaty on ESDP” organised by the European Parliament's subcommittee on security and defence on 11 February. Members of this sub-committee chaired by Karl von Wogau (EPP-ED) heard academic experts and some of their colleagues from the EP constitutional affairs committee.
Antonio Missiroli (Director of the European Policy Centre, EPC) takes the view that the arrangements to be made by end 2008 for preparing application of the new treaty as of 1 January 2009 will be vital for the future of CFSP/ESDP. The treaty is neither clear nor sufficiently exhaustive on several major points and “many of the grey areas are still there”, noted Mr Missiroli, who is the author of a study on the question (to obtain the study, write to: xp-poldep@europarl.europa.eu). These shortcomings will require clarification and also, perhaps, even negotiation between member states and Community institutions if one is to prevent complications arising in 2009, Mr Missiroli states, nonetheless predicting “gradual and progressive implementation” of the treaty over “several years”.
There is also a need for clarification with regard to the Union “troika” - made up of the president of the European Council, the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy, and the president of the European Commission - “whose competences and responsibilities are not sufficiently clear”, Mr Missiroli notes, believing this could be a potential cause of “clash”. The exact powers of the persons holding these different posts must be clearly defined, otherwise “the different post-holders will themselves determine their authority and responsibilities”.
On the subject of the EU High Representative (HR), who must ensure CFSP implementation among other things, the treaty simply states that he/she may be supported by the European External Action Service (EEAS). Nothing, however, is said about the team around the HR. Will a personal representative be attributed to the HR? How many officials will work under him? Where will they be located: - at the Commission (of which the HR will also be vice-president) or at the Council?
Clarity is also lacking when it comes to the relationship between the HR and the President of the European Council. According to the treaty, the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council (chaired by the HR) should “define” CFSP by adopting “decisions”. These decisions are then “carried out” by the HR who can, however, make “proposals” to the Council and to the European Council. How will the HR be involved in the preparation of CFSP/ESDP decisions taken by the European Council (for which preparations are increasingly carried out directly between capitals outside Community circuits)? The situation becomes even more unclear when it is a matter of representing the CFSP outside the EU. The treaty thus stipulates that the president of the European Council should ensure, at his level, the EU's “external representation” for matters relating to the CFSP. At the same time, the treaty provides for the HR to represent the EU for matters relating to common foreign and security policy and to be the mouthpiece for the EU in international organisations and within international conferences. Would this mean that the president of the European Council would represent the CFSP/ESDP only at summits (in the presence of third country heads of state and governments) and that the HR would be the representative during all other international meetings? Jo Leinen (SPD), who chairs the constitutional committee, believes the EP should ensure that the HR remains the “central figure” for the CFSP/ESDP and not the president of the European Council “who cannot have executive power” (that is the way the Convention wanted it, he stressed). In principle, the Commission president does not have any specific role to play regarding CFSP/ESDP because the HR already fulfils that role - as a member of the Commission of which he is vice-president. However, according to Mr Missiroli, it is “unlikely” that the president of the Commission will completely abstain from all interference due to the high number of Community policies with a large external dimension (energy, environment, transport, etc), for which the Commission naturally keeps its right of own initiative.
The fact that the Foreign Affairs Council is to be presided over by the HR in future, whereas the General Affairs Council and the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) will continue to be subject to the six-monthly rotating presidency system, may also complicate matters when it comes to the CFSP/ESDP. For example, because the General Affairs Council will decide on administrative and budgetary matters, including on the CFSP/ESDP, said Missiroli.
Ultimately, the proper operation of the new ESDP will depend largely on the “chemistry” between the future HR and the President of the European Council, and also on the personality of the Commission President and the President of the European Parliament. To ensure maximum consistency and political balance, Jo Leinen proposed on Monday that the four be appointed “as a package”, and after the European elections of June 2009. In the normal way of things, at least the HR and the European Council President should be appointed by 31 December 2008, to allow the treaty to come into force at the start of 2009. For Leinen, the appointment of the four leaders as a package in summer 2009 should not affect the Lisbon Treaty's coming into effect on 1 January 2009. The Council would simply have to extend the current mandate held by Javier Solana by a few months and decide to delay the appointment of the European Council President until 2009, he told EUROPE.
The EP seminar also confirmed that, with regard more specifically to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) - which is an integral part of the CFSP and which will have its name changed on the Lisbon Treaty's coming into force, becoming the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP - several questions remain, such as the precise institutional location of military bodies in the new structure. Another uncertainty at this point is how the permanent structured cooperation will operate in practice between the member states which have the military capabilities and the political will to launch ESDP missions. According to experts, the question of the precise criteria for participation in such permanent structured cooperation has, in particular, to be asked. (H.B.)