Tread carefully in forming EU diplomacy
The EU’s new diplomatic service must not seize powers that have always been in the hands of the Commission and EU governments.
The Lisbon treaty will be a game-changer for the European Union’s foreign policy. The set-up and remit of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU’s new diplomatic service, will shape the foreign policy agenda of an increasingly influential world power. It is therefore crucial to understand the purpose of this new institution, as well as the benchmarks set for it in the treaty.
In creating the service, the 27 member states have taken the step of ceding some power over a core piece of national sovereignty in order to allow the European Union to speak with one voice at the global level. But, if given too much responsibility, the new service may re-ignite the embers of controversy and put at risk the success of a core community issue, development co-operation, just at the moment when European unity could advance this shared value.
That is one of the dangers in the proposal by some members of the European Parliament that this diplomatic service should be based in the European Commission – hoping perhaps to fast-track a United States of Europe. Europe is not ready for a change as monumental as that, and nor will the member states want to waive oversight, scrutiny and control over the new diplomatic corps’ wheeling and dealing. The Lisbon treaty makes it clear that policies of security, defence and foreign relations will remain inter-governmental and the treaty gives no specific powers of scrutiny to the Parliament. It should therefore be member states that provide oversight.
Given the mood across Europe, the treaty reflects the way the majority of European citizens see foreign policy, as a responsibility of national governments. The idea of a diplomatic service in the Commission is therefore a non-starter and, in effect, it has already been excluded by the Council and by the Commission.
But, if the diplomatic service must be separate from the Commission, how should it and Commission divide their labour? An alternative view, from the other end of the spectrum, is that a new institution outside the Commission should incorporate all EU external-policy areas. In this magical thinking, the new service will banish the problems that complicate agreements over joint EU foreign policies. This view ignores the Lisbon treaty, which clearly distinguishes between sensitive intergovernmental policies (security, defence, foreign policy) and consensual Community policies (development and humanitarian aid, trade) that are implemented by the Commission with European Parliament oversight.
This and any other proposals that unsettle the fundamental balance between the EU’s institutions would only threaten the future of the EU. And a mixing of the intergovernmental and community policy areas would weaken the accountability of the diplomatic service. It would create confusion as to who – the member states or the European Parliament – should provide scrutiny. It would be a high-risk move that would threaten the success of the new diplomatic service in its infancy – and a rupture to co-operation on development, which has been an intrinsic part of European community provisions since 1957.
Merging the 27 cultures and traditions of foreign policy, security, intelligence, defence and diplomacy is an ambitious goal. The EU should be concerned that this process will be properly managed. Failing to create an effective joint service would foil the EU’s ambition to become a global player of the 21st century and would damage its agenda for decades to come.
Development and humanitarian aid form the backbone of joint European external policy, an area of strong consensus, so the treaty placed these areas under the Community pillar of the European Union. The purpose of the new EEAS is to begin to co-ordinate foreign policy in areas that the member states will not readily hand over without direct scrutiny.
If the new service is to enjoy the best chance of success, it would be an inexcusable mistake to burden it with the execution of Community policies, such as development, aid and trade. This would inevitably and unnecessarily politicise the existing consensus on development and humanitarian aid, and undermine the effectiveness of all external policies. The business of the EEAS should be to build a European diplomatic corps capable of dealing effectively with new challenges that require a joint approach from member states in the delicate areas of security, foreign and defence policy.
We should not fix what is not broken. The European Commission should continue to implement development policy, humanitarian aid and trade. The letter and spirit of the treaty make clear that should be the case, as too does the legal advice received from the Council of Ministers and European Parliament.
Mirjam van Reisen is the author of “Window of Opportunity. EU Development Policy after the End of the Cold War” and “EU Global Player” and director of Europe External Policy Advisors (EEPA).
Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store