EUROPEAN DIARY:An informal meeting of foreign ministers in Cordoba, Spain, at the weekend gave Catherine Ashton a strong mandate for her new position
COBBLESTONES underfoot, cigarette smoke in the cafes, low overhead the insistent drone of a police helicopter. EU foreign ministers gathered for an informal meeting last weekend in Cordoba, Spain. As infighting in Brussels escalates over the union’s new diplomatic corps, they gave foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton a strong mandate for the talks.
EU governments are vying with the European Commission and MEPs for influence over the new body, to be known as the European External Action Service (EAS). In the middle stands Baroness Ashton, roiled this way and that as she strives to shape a big new European institution while seeking to establish her voice in global affairs. It is a daunting task.
That Ashton simultaneously chairs the council of foreign ministers while serving as a vice-president of the commission complicates her position. She would lead the EAS, however, so it is in her interest to maximise its strength. Thus she must be tough with the commission. This is tricky given the two hats she wears, doubly so because commission chief José Manuel Barroso was a key supporter of her unexpected nomination as foreign policy chief.
Planning for the EAS, an autonomous body charged with representing the union throughout the globe, flows from the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty. Largely due to sensitivities over the second Irish referendum and the prevarications of Czech president Vaclav Klaus, there was virtually no advance planning for the new body. There are some individuals in Brussels who like nothing more than an inter-institutional squabble, the more intricate and bloody the better. As their hearts pound, however, the problem for the EU is that one-upmanship and factionalism risk taking precedence over policy.
This is self-defeating and risks diluting the EU’s capacity to make a meaningful contribution as global efforts intensify to reboot the Middle East peace process and deal with Iran’s nuclear programme. Numerous other issues loom, Afghanistan and Iraq among them.
“Everyone is playing their games – I mean that’s hardly surprising,” Sweden’s foreign minister, Carl Bildt, told reporters in Cordoba.
Conscious that the EAS has the potential to become a major player in global affairs – that is the intention in Brussels, after all – member states are keen to maximise their leverage over the new body. This applies equally to governments who have high ambition for the service and those who would much prefer to limit its reach. All are confronted, however, with the commission’s reluctance to cede too many powers. “The psychology of the commission is very defensive. It’s not helpful,” says a diplomat with knowledge of the talks.
The contrary argument is that the commission is merely sticking to the treaty. For example, to Ashton’s claim that the EAS should take responsibility for development aid comes the riposte that Lisbon foresees the service as a vehicle concerned with the EU’s common security and defence. Then there is the European Parliament, whose members already have control over budget and staff regulations for the new body. In addition, however, MEPs want a say over key diplomatic appointments and representation within the EAS itself.
In public, each side pledges good faith. In private, dogged campaigns of attrition are under way. “Every day we find new things in the treaty,” the diplomat explains. Thus stratagems and battle plans are being revised continuously on all sides.
As Baroness Ashton prepares to make public her plans next month, Brussels is in a fever of politicking. Whether she can bring all sides together will be a key test of her clout. Crucially, however, a succession of ministers backed her in the tussle with the commission by asserting their primacy over foreign affairs. For the EU as whole, keen to present a stronger and more coherent front in the world, the creation of EAS raises sharp questions over who gets to mould and execute some of the union’s most important policies.
For example, who acts for the union in climate talks? Should the EAS direct development policy, leaving the commission to deliver programmes? Or should the commission have a say in the selection and scale of programmes? To what extent should trade policy, which is in the commission’s gift, blend with development policy? It goes on and on. Further sensitivity centres on the distinction between those empowered to deputise for Ashton (most likely a small group of top-ranking EAS diplomats) and those who represent her (more likely to be a wider group, including foreign ministers).
“There are legal opinions flowing left, right and centre in terms of this thing,” said Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin. Echoing the views of his counterparts, he has said that the commission should be generous in the talks.
So did he see any indications of such generosity in Cordoba? “Yes, there are. The commission representative made it very clear that they wanted this to work,” the Minister said as he prepared to return home. “He was very flexible, said they were going to make this work – but also, as you know, there was a marker or two put down as well.”
To be continued.
