Sir,

 

There is no denying that the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) had a difficult first decade. But as Elmar Brok rightly underlined, its enhancement is widely desired because the EU must consolidate its presence on the world stage. The question now is whether the “communitarisation” of the second pillar is the sine qua non of a successful foreign policy? If Europe is indeed a super-power in the making, it would be better to submit it to democratic control through the European Parliament than for it to develop with values that European society does not really care for.

 

First, we must come to terms with the fact that one of the major failures of CFSP has been its inability to meld foreign policy and external relations into a coherent whole. This has engendered a debilitating bureaucratic conflict. Splitting political diplomacy away from its economic and social underpinning was a disaster that adoption of the constitution would have averted. Without the constitution, not only European foreign policy but also the Commission’s role in it (and by extension that of the Parliament) are at a crossroads. The constitution would have merged the competing foreign policy bureaucracies of the Commission and the Council, so now we must hope for some semblance of a solution without treaty change; it ought not to be beyond the wit of man, even though it still seems beyond that of the EU’s bureaucrats.

 

The High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, has argued that with or without swift ratification of the constitution a viable European diplomacy can still be created, and former EU External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten says that “despite the dumping of the draft treaty, some arrangement like this is likely one day to emerge”. This may sound perplexing, yet practical preparation of a new approach is already underway.

 

Javier Solana has long argued that the EU’s external representation needed review, and he spotlighted the need for more coordination of ministerial visits abroad, more assistance to the High Representative (HR), more synergy between member state embassies and Commission Delegations, more intelligent use of the EU’s weight and influence in international organisations, enhanced CFSP instruments and more flexible access to CFSP funds. He is right; the Commission has the job of negotiating far-reaching conditionality clauses into agreements and spreading the norms of the Union, whether they be political, economic or philosophical. But it must do this in collaboration with the High Representative and the Council. Solana’s undeniable success comes from the respect he has won. We should try to Imagine how much more the influence of the EU would be enhanced if he also had command of the practical tools of his trade. Instead, he has had to fight to extend his responsibility across the EU foreign policy board, and this has clearly affected his staff’s relations with the Commission. It really is time to put an end to the intrigues. Both sides in Brussels need each other if their work is to be coherent and comprehensive. And abroad, no European Union Special Representative (EUSR) or ESDP mission would be effective without the daily support and guidance of the Commission.

 

The lawyers can help. As Elmar Brok pointed out, the European Court of Justice is about to pronounce on a Commission challenge to the legality of CFSP involvement in small arms collections. The outcome will have implications in several policy areas in which the Commission has long been active; development aid, security sector reform, disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration of former combatants and other arms-related issues such as landmines. The outlook for more coherent policy making is now partly in the hands of the Court.

 

We have to get the new system right, and this is not proving easy. If the old pillar system brought contradictions and surprises, the draft constitution introduced a new incoherence with its call for the European Union Foreign Minister (EUFM) to run the Commission’s external relations. I myself still find it hard to imagine how the role of EU Foreign Minister, with its inherent responsibility to the Council, can be reconciled with the obligations on Commissioners to be independent of extraneous influence. While old conflicts in the external relations field between the EU Presidency, the High Representative (HR) and Commission might have been removed by the Constitution, new ones may be in the making through its mooted idea of “triple accountability” - to the Council (which the HR was to chair and lead), to the Commission (of which he was to be Vice-President), and to the President of the European Council (who was also to represent the EU abroad, albeit “at his level”).