The EU diplomatic service is taking shape II

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. They would no longer represent themselves but the Union on the international stage.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.

Ms Ashton is in charge of planning the new EU diplomatic service and, according to the EU leaders such proposal should be made “as soon as possible (…) with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010.” Hence, on 25 March, the High Representative presented her proposal for a Council Decision establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service which will have its headquarters in Brussels. Catherine Ashton has said that the EEAS “(…) will help strengthen the European Union on the global stage, give it more profile, and enable it to project its interests and values more efficiently.”

According to the draft proposal, the EAAS will 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 European Parliament does not have much say over the creation of the EEAS as it is only consulted, however it has been calling for the EEAS to be part of the Commission administrative structure, whilst being accountable to the Parliament in political and budgetary terms. A group of MEPs has already described Ashton's proposal as "unacceptable." Elmar Brok, Guy Verhofstadt, Hannes Swoboda, Rebecca Harms and Daniel Cohn-Bendit issued a statement regretting that “despite many contacts over the past weeks, the high representative has chosen not to take parliament's views sufficiently into account.” According to the MEPs "(…) the political accountability of the EAS to parliament is not addressed.” However, as Ashley Fox MEP has said “(…) To have a diplomatic corps answering to MEPs rather than national governments would be detrimental to Britain's interests."

Under the draft proposal the EEAS would be required to 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 would be made up of a central administration and of Union delegations to third countries and to international organisations. A Secretary-General will manage the EEAS under the authority of the High Representative, ensuring “effective coordination between all departments in the central administration as well as with the Union delegations.” The Secretary-General would have, therefore, too much power, according to the proposal, he/she “(…) shall take all measures necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the EEAS, including its administrative and budgetary management (…)" Such person would also represent the EEAS. The abovementioned MEPs have also slammed Ms Ashton’s proposed structure as according to them “an omnipotent secretary general and deputy secretary generals does not provide the politically legitimised deputies that the high representative needs in order to do her job properly." The MEPs are calling for “political deputies that can engage on her behalf (Ms Ashton) with both Parliament and partners in third countries," and not civil servants.

Obviously, the member states are already fighting over the EEAS’s high-ranking posts, being the post of Secretary-General the most wanted. Unsurprisingly, the choice will be between two French diplomats, Pierre Vimont and Pierre Sellal, and a German diplomat, Christoph Heusgen. It would be another horse trading.

Under Ms Ashton’s proposal 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 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 would also be a directorate general for administrative, staffing, budgetary, security as well as a legal department and departments for inter-institutional relations, information and public diplomacy, internal audit and inspections, and personal data protection.

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. According to the proposal, 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 abovementioned instruments, but, under the proposal, the EEAS and the High Representative must work in consultation with the relevant Commission’s services, “throughout the whole cycle.” Ms Ashton’s proposal 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.” The EEAS will be, therefore, responsible, for drafting the strategic priorities for the EU's neighbourhood policy.

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. 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. Unsurprisingly, accountability is at stake. Moreover, the Commission wants to keep its responsibility for development aid as well as for the EU's neighbourhood policy.

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.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the present 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. In fact, over 50 of the European Commission’s delegations have been already converted. The EU delegations will represent the EU and not just the Commission and will take over the role and functions currently undertaken by 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 draft proposal “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. Under the draft proposal, 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.” Under the draft proposal, 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.

According to the draft proposal the “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 23 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 the MEPs, the EU delegations in third countries “could in many cases take over consular services and deal with Schengen visa issues.” In fact, they would have a role ensuring that the new EU visa code is comply with. 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.”

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.

Under the proposal, Member State would be required to provide their officials who are EEAS temporary agents with “a guarantee of immediate reinstatement at the end of their period of secondment to the EEAS.” And, they may decide to prolong this guarantee, in case of two consecutive secondments, according to their national law.

The EEAS could involve over than 6,000 staff. The proposal 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.” The foreign office would have to share its staff with EEAS. Hence, people who want to pursue a diplomatic career to represent their country might end up in a “Union Delegation.” Moreover, according to the draft proposal “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 present proposal 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.

According to the draft proposal the EEAS staff will be provided with “adequate common training, building in particular on existing national practices and structures.” 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 EEAS would have its own EU’s budget line. The High Representative will propose and implement the EEAS budget. But, Ms Ashton may delegate her managing powers to the Secretary-General. The budget for the European external action service has not been decided yet.

The High Representative’s proposal must be approved by the Council, acting by QMV, after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. The proposal is very likely to be changed. Obviously, the European Parliament would have its say on the budget to be proposed by the High Representative and it will know how to use its budgetary powers in order to have influence over the EEAS. The European Parliament has co-decision powers over changes to the EU's financial and staff regulations. The meps have already said that Ms Ashton’s proposal "(…) needs decisive changes, otherwise parliament will not be able to carry forward the required modifications of the staff and financial regulation."