In the end, the timing of the presentation of the blueprint for the EU’s new diplomatic service was more of a surprise than its contents.
Months of bargaining had ensured that the outlines of the proposal for the European External Action Service (EEAS) were visible for some time. But the complexity and ill-temper of the inter-institutional negotiations had left many observers doubtful that Catherine Ashton, the EU’s new foreign policy chief, would be able to meet her deadline, the end of March.
In the event, she presented her proposal several days early, on 25 March. In the eyes of some insiders, the turning point in the drafting process came in early March, with the surprise appointment to Ashton’s private office of Poul Skytte Christoffersen, Denmark’s ambassador to the EU. Another former EU ambassador said that Ashton had wasted too much time with a working group consisting of Commission officials and member states’ diplomats and that she should have adopted the “Christoffersen model” much earlier. The result seems to vindicate that view.
An initial lack of a sense of purpose had not been the only criticism levelled at Ashton. Early in the year, diplomats had grumbled that Ashton, who also serves as a vice-president of the Commission, was doing the Commission’s bidding.
‘Joined-up’ service
Ashton may have had such criticism in mind when she outlined the proposal for a “joined-up service” capable of advancing the Lisbon treaty’s goal of strengthening and unifying the EU’s presence on the global stage. The foreign policy chief, who normally holds her briefings at the Commission’s Berlaymonts headquarters, where she keeps her office, summoned reporters to the Justus Lipsius building, the headquarters of the Council of Ministers, where EU leaders were about to meet for their two-day summit.
So was Ashton’s choice of time and place, with its proximity to the leaders of the member states, a signal?
Although it was endorsed by the Commission last week, Ashton’s proposal reflects the will of the member states in core areas, for example on who should appoint EEAS staff (see article, right). But the picture is more complicated when it comes to relations with developing countries.
The Commission wanted to retain its prerogatives over policy and spending against the will of the member states. In the end, a compromise was struck. It handed responsibility for strategy and for the overall financial allocations for each country to the EEAS and left execution with the Commission, with Ashton and Andris Piebalgs, the commissioner for development, both in effect holding a veto. But the Commission services under Piebalgs’s supervision will also be involved in preparing the policies and decisions that are to be adopted by the EEAS, giving the Commission further scope for shaping policy.
A similar arrangement was agreed for the EU’s neighbourhood policy. Ashton’s proposal, however, leaves the practicalities of this division of labour open, which could hand an advantage to the Commission services.
It is the third EU institution – the European Parliament – that now poses the principal obstacles to the establishment of the EEAS.
Officials working for Ashton hope that the member states’ Europe ministers can formally adopt the proposal when they meet in Brussels at the end of this month. After that, Ashton will within a month have to submit to the Commission an estimate of the EEAS’s expenditures, the so-called establishment plan. On that basis, the Commission will then draw up an amending budget. This is subject to co-decision and therefore will need the backing of the Parliament.
Financing and staffing
So too will two regulations – on financing and staffing – that must be amended for the EEAS to function. MEPs may be predisposed to use these powers, since they will have little opportunity to make their voice heard once the service is up and running.
In any case, the mood among MEPs is foul, following Ashton’s dismissal of many of their ideas for the EEAS (see box). It may well be that the Parliament will not vote on the regulations before the summer break.
Catherine Day, the Commission’s secretary-general, briefed member states’ ambassadors on the draft amendments on Tuesday (30 March).
The amendments still need to be formally adopted by the college of commissioners following further consultations with staff unions, who worry about career prospects and the ‘parachuting’ of member states’ diplomats.
In the absence of revised regulations, Ashton will have to negotiate ad hoc arrangements with the secretariat-general of the Council of Ministers and the Commission. This could prove technically and politically tricky.