The EU diplomatic service is shaped – the Council has approved it

The Union not only has a “foreign affairs minister”, but also a diplomatic service with delegations in several countries. Baroness Ashton as the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be assisted in carrying out her mandate to conduct the Common Foreign and Security Policy by the European External Action Service. The President of the Commission, the Commission and the President of the European Council will also be assisted by the EEAS.

The EU member states have given up a substantial portion of their sovereignty so that the EU could speak with one voice at the international stage. What will happen to the UK diplomatic representation? Who will defend the interests of the Commonwealth? What will happen to the foreign office? One could wonder if the European External Action Service would take over. Britain’s capacity to promote its own interests in the world would be seriously restricted.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the creation of the European External Action Service must be approved by the Council, acting by QMV, after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. Thus, the European Parliament does not have much say over the creation of the service as it is only consulted. However, the European Parliament has co-decision powers over changes to the EU's financial and staff regulations, consequently it has been using these powers in order to have influence over the EEAS and have its demands accepted. In fact, by threatening to veto any amendments to the financial and staff regulations, the MEPs have won important concessions from Ms Ashton in the shape of the EU diplomatic service.

Last June, at a behind closed doors meeting, Catherine Ashton, the European Commission, the European Parliament's three rapporteurs and Miguel Moratinos, Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, reached a political agreement on the organisation and operation of the EEAS. Moreover, they reached an agreement on Ms Ashton’s declarations on political accountability and on the basic structure of the central administration. The European Parliament was able to modify the proposal presented by the High Representative last March and generally endorsed by the Commission and the Council.

Such political agreement has been recently approved by the Council. On 26 July, the General Affairs Council formally adopted a decision establishing the European External Action Service and setting out its organisation and functioning.

Bill Cash, in a debate on the European External Action Service, has stressed his concern "about the overlapping functions and the contradictions that will emerge between the necessity of maintaining our bilateral relations with other countries and the extremely ambitious proposals in this decision on global reach. It is phenomenal to imagine an external action service on this scale that would in any way be regarded as not interfering with our domestic diplomatic service.”

The Council decision has paved the way for the EU diplomatic service to be up and running by December 2010. The EEAS would be a “functionally autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative.” It would be separate from the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council. The EEAS would work in cooperation with the General Secretariat of the Council and the services of the Commission, as well as with the diplomatic services of the Member States. The EEAS and the Commission’s services shall consult each other on all matters relating to the external action of the Union.

The EEAS will be made up of a central administration and of Union delegations to third countries and to international organisations. The EEAS will be managed by an Executive Secretary-General, who, under the High Representative’s authority, will in charge of ensuring the “effective coordination between all departments in the central administration as well as with the Union delegations.” He/she “(…) shall take all measures necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the EEAS, including its administrative and budgetary management (…)" The Executive Secretary-General will be assisted by two Deputy Secretaries-General.

The central administration of the EEAS will be organised in directorates general which will comprise geographic desks, covering all countries and regions of the world, and thematic desks.
The EEAS’s central administration will include a directorate general for administrative, staffing, budgetary, security and communication and information system matters. At the MEPs request the High Representative will also appoint a director general for budget and administration. It will also include the crisis management and planning directorate, the civilian planning and conduct capability, the European Union Military Staff and the European Union Situation Centre, which will be under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative in her capacity as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. There will also be a strategic policy planning department, legal department and departments for inter-institutional relations, information and public diplomacy, internal audit and inspections, and personal data protection.

The member states are already fighting over the EEAS’s high-ranking posts, being the post of Executive Secretary-General the most wanted. Unsurprisingly, it seems that this post will go to a French diplomat, Pierre Vimont and Helga Schmid, a German EU official, will be one of the Deputy Secretaries-General whereas the other might be Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland’s minister for Europe. This would be another horse trading.

The EU High Representative will also conduct the European Security and Defence Policy. The EEAS will also provide the support, currently given by the General Secretariat of the Council, to the European Defence Agency, the European Union Satellite Centre, the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the European Security and Defence College. Moreover, the crisis management structures such as the Crisis Management and Planning Directorate (CMPD), the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) as well as the Military Staff (EUMS) would be incorporated into the EEAS. The EEAS would, therefore, manage EU security and defence projects, crisis management, civil and military operations. The service would also incorporate, the EU's Joint Situation Centre intelligence-gathering unit (SitCen), thus it would deal with the sharing of the intelligence analysis. All these structures would be placed under the direct authority and responsibility of the High Representative, Catherine Ashton. Hence, the EEAS will be a melting pot combining sensitive intergovernmental policies (security, defence, foreign policy) and community policies. One could wonder if the CFSP intergovernmental nature would be respected.

The Lisbon treaty has left a lot of room for interpretation as regards the EEAS field of application. The EEAS will be composed of thematic and geographical desks which will carry out the tasks presently undertaken by DG External Relations and the Council Secretariat. The management of the EU external cooperation programmes will remain under the Commission’s responsibility, but the High Representative and the EEAS will be involved in the programming and management cycle of geographic financial and thematic instruments, such as the Development Cooperation Instrument, the European Development Fund, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries and the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation.

The Commission has exclusive competence over trade negotiations and membership negotiations therefore trade and enlargement will not be integrated into the EEAS. The European instrument for pre-accession assistance will continue to be managed by DG Enlargement in the Commission.

The Commission will continue responsible for the programming, planning and implementation of the above-mentioned instruments, but, under the decision, the EEAS and the High Representative must work in consultation with the relevant Commission’s services, “throughout the whole cycle.” The EEAS decision provides that “All proposals for decision will be prepared through Commission procedures and submitted to the Commission for decision”, but the EEAS would be responsible “for preparing the Commission decisions on the strategic, multiannual steps within the programming cycle” such as “country allocations to determine the global financial envelope for each region” and “country and regional strategic papers.”

Any proposals and programming documents relating to the European Development Fund and the Development Cooperation Instrument, would be, now, prepared by the EEAS and Commission services under the supervision of the Development Commissioner, and submitted with the High Representative for decision by the Commission. The Commission services, under the guidance of the Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, will continue to prepare the horizontal Communications on Development Policy.

Any proposals and programming documents regarding the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, would be also drafted by the EEAS and Commission services, under the supervision of the Commissioner responsible for Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, and submitted with the High Representative for decision by the Commission.
Moreover, the High Representative and the EEAS would be responsible for actions carried out under the CFSP budget, the Instrument for Stability, the Instrument for Cooperation with Industrialised Countries, communication and public Diplomacy actions, and election observation missions. However, the Commission is responsible for their financial implementation under the supervision of Ms Ashton in his capacity as Vice-President of the Commission.

It is far from clear how this will work in practical terms. It remains to be seen how EEAS will interact with the Commission services which will not be transferred to it such as the directorate-general for development, and how their competences will be balanced. Unsurprisingly, accountability is at stake.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission delegations in third countries will be transformed into "Union delegations” under the authority of the High Representative. Over 130 delegations of the EU, in more than 150 countries, will be part of the EEAS’s structure. The EU delegations will represent the EU and not just the Commission and will take over the role and functions undertaken by the embassies of the member states holding the rotating presidency, in terms of local coordination and representation of the Union. They would work in cooperation with Member States' diplomatic services. According to the decision “They shall, on a reciprocal basis, provide all relevant information.”

The Union delegations will include EEAS staff as well as staff from relevant Commission services.

The High Representative will have the power to decide on opening a delegation, after consulting the Council and the Commission. The decision to close a delegation would also be taken by the High Representative, in agreement with the Council and the Commission.

The Union delegations will be led by a head of delegation that will have authority over all the delegation’s staff. Moreover, the head of each delegation would have the power to represent the EU in the country where the delegation is located, they would be, therefore, the “EU's ambassadors.” The head of delegations would be accountable to the High Representative and would receive instructions from Ms Ashton and the EEAS. However, the Commission would also be able to issue instructions to delegations, in areas where it has the powers conferred to it by the Treaties. Obviously, the Commission will attempt to keep its power in managing the delegations.

Under the decision the High Representative is required to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that the host country, the international organisation, grant “the Union delegations, their staff and their property, privileges and immunities equivalent to those referred to in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961.”

According to the decision “Union delegations shall have the capacity to service the needs of other EU institutions” particularly “the European Council and the European Parliament, in their official contacts with the international organisations or third countries to which they are accredited.” In fact, Ms Ashton has promised to the MEPs' that the Heads of delegations would be at their “disposal when issues in relation to their host countries are examined by the European Parliament.” She said that “all delegations in the EEAS will be instructed to support official visits by members of the European Parliament.”

Moreover, the so called “Union embassies” would be empowered to “support the Member States in their diplomatic relations and in their role of providing consular protection to Union citizens in third countries.” It is important to recall that the Lisbon Treaty provides a clear legal basis on diplomatic and consular protection. The new Article 20 stipulates that the Council, acting by QMV “may adopt directives establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to facilitate such protection." This is another sovereign right which was taken from the Member States.

According to Europolitcs a diplomat has said that whereas member states will not abolish their embassies, “the intention is, nevertheless, that they will make staff savings because embassies will only focus on national tasks.”

The European External Action Service will be composed by a combination of diplomatic services of the Member States and officials from the Council General Secretariat and of the Commission. In what concerns staff and their recruitment the EEAS would be treated as an institution within the meaning of the Staff Regulations. All staff of the EEAS would be covered by the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. The High Representative will be the “appointing authority.” The EEAS will include officials from the Commission external relations directorate (DG Relex), and Council secretariat as well as personnel seconded from the diplomatic services of the Member States. The departments and functions in the General Secretariat of the Council and in the Commission external relations directorate (DG Relex) would be transferred to the EEAS. Such transfers will take effect on 1 January 2011.

The EEAS could involve over than 6,000 staff. The decision reads “When the EEAS has reached its full capacity, staff from Member States should represent at least one third of all EEAS staff at AD level.” According to the European Parliament the majority of the EEAS personnel should come from the Commission and the Council. It was therefore agreed and added to the decision that 60% of the EAS staff should come from the EU institutions rather than from member states. According to Emar Brok "This will ensure, as parliament wished, that it will not based on a workforce of national diplomats." Moreover,
as requested by the European Parliament after July 2013 the EEAS should not only recruit officials from the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission and staff from diplomatic services of the Member States but also all officials and other servants of the EU, including officials from the European Parliament.

Moreover, according to the decision “The staff members of the EEAS shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union in mind”, consequently “they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government, authority, organisation or person outside the EEAS or any body or person other than the High Representative.”

The selection procedures for EEAS staff would be established by the High Representative, which, according to the recently adopted decision would be based on merit and with due regard for gender and geographical balance. Ms Ashton has proposed the establishment of a Consultative Committee on Appointment (CCA) composed of representatives of the Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council who would also be involved in the recruitment procedure. The CCA would propose a short list of candidates for appointment by the High Representative. All candidates for posts of heads of delegations would be subjected to selection procedures, but the Commission has to agree on a shortlist of candidates. This is another controversial issue between the Commission and the member states, several member states believe that the Commission is too involved in the appointment of heads of delegations. The Commission has been in charge of appointing the heads of delegation and, unsurprisingly, wants to keep this power.

It is important to recall that last February, the European Commission, meaning Jose Manuel Barroso, appointed João Vale de Almeida as head of the EU's delegation in Washington, DC. Mr Barroso took advantage of the so called “transitional phase”, as there are no rules of procedure for the appointment of the EEAS staff in place yet, to appoint his fellow to run the Union's embassy in Washington. Member States were no consulted and one could wonder if Ms Ashton had any say in the appointment.

Ms Ashton is expecting to announce the first appointments of EU ambassadors in September.

According to the decision the EEAS staff will be provided with “adequate common training, building in particular on existing practices and structures at national and Union level.” It remains to be seen “which appropriate measures to that effect” the High Representative will take. It is important to mention that the European Parliament has suggested the creation of a “European diplomatic college” to provide “training based on fully harmonised curricula” to Union officials and officials of the Member States. As Ashley Fox has said “(…) a dedicated diplomatic college to train an army of EU diplomats is a total unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money.”

The European Parliament got Ms Ashton assurance that it will be informed of strategic and policy decisions such as the planning and deployment of EU missions abroad. According to the decision “the High Representative will regularly consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the CFSP and will ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration.” Moreover, the MEPs will have access to classified documents. The MEPs will not be able to hold official confirmation hearings of the EU ambassadors, nevertheless, according to Ms Ashton’s declarations on political accountability “The HR will respond positively to requests from the European Parliament for newly appointed Heads of Delegations to countries and organisations (and EU Special Representatives) … to appear before AFET for an exchange of views.” Moreover, the High Representative “will facilitate the appearance of Heads of Delegations, EUSRs, Heads of CSDP missions and senior EEAS officials in relevant parliamentary committees and subcommittees in order to provide regular briefings.”

The European Parliament has been calling for the EEAS to be part of the Commission administrative structure and be funded from the Commission budget, whilst being accountable to the Parliament in political and financial terms. Whereas the Member States wanted to set up an independent body with its own budget, MEPs want attach the EU diplomatic service to the European Commission. However, under the compromise deal the EAS's operational expenditure would be integrated in the Commission's budget. The Commission has therefore responsibility for its implementation, whereas the administrative expenditure would be separated. The EEAS would draft up estimates of its expenditure for the following financial year. Then, the Commission consolidates those estimates in a draft general budget. Under the decision, the Commission will transmit the draft general budget of the EU to the Council and European Parliament, together with a “working document presenting, in a comprehensive way, all expenditure related to the external action of the Union.”

The budget for the European external action service has not yet been decided yet. The Financial Regulation will be amended in order to include the EEAS. Ms Ashton will present within one month to the Commission an EEAS's estimate of the revenue and expenditure, so that the Commission may present a draft amending budget.

The costs of the service are not known yet. However, the EU diplomatic service would not be “budget neutral” as promised by Ms Ashton. There would be start up costs which will require further funds. According to Mr Lidington the UK’s share of such costs would be around £1.1 million.