17 The European External Action Service
| (35271)
—
—
| Review by the High Representative of the European External Action Service
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 27 August 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (33638) —: HC 428-xlix (2010-12), chapter 1 (1 February 2012); (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 1 (7 April 2010); also see (31445) — and (31446) 8134/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10), chapter 2 (7 April 2010)
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
17.1 Prior to the coming-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty, in 1999,
the office of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP) was introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty. Javier
Solana was the sole occupant of that position. Together with an
increasing number of officials in the Council Secretariat, he
assisted the Council in foreign policy matters, through contributing
to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions.
He acted on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue
with third parties. The six-monthly rotating Presidency was in
charge of chairing the External Relations Council, representing
the Union in CFSP matters, implementing the decisions taken and
for expressing the EU position internationally.
17.2 Under the Lisbon Treaty, new arrangements came
into being. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority,
with the agreement of the President of the Commission, appoints
the High Representative; he or she is subject, together with the
President of the Commission and the other members of the Commission,
to a vote of consent by the European Parliament.
17.3 At their informal meeting in Brussels on 19
November, ahead of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon
(TEU) on 1 December, EU Heads of State or Government agreed on
the appointment of Baroness Catherine Ashton as the High Representative
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).
17.4 The High Representative now exercises, in foreign
affairs, the functions that were previously exercised by the six-monthly
rotating Presidency, the High Representative for CFSP and the
Commissioner for External Relations. According to Articles 18
and 27 TEU, the High Representative:
- conducts the Union's common
foreign and security policy;
- contributes by her proposals to the development
of that policy, which she will carry out as mandated by the Council,
and ensures implementation of the decisions adopted in this field;
- presides over the Foreign Affairs Council;
- as one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission,
ensures the consistency of the Union's external action and is
responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent
on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects
of the Union's external action;
- represents the Union for matters relating to
the common foreign and security policy, conduct political dialogue
with third parties on the Union's behalf and expresses the Union's
position in international organisations and at international conferences;
and
- shall be assisted by a European External Action
Service (EEAS).
17.5 Article 27(3) TEU constitutes the legal basis
for the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of
the EEAS.
"In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative
shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This
service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services
of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant
departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the
Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic
services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning
of the European External Action Service shall be established by
a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal
from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament
and after obtaining the consent of the Commission."
European Council Guidelines on the EEAS
17.6 According to the guidelines, the EEAS was to
be a single service under the authority of the High Representative,
with an organisational status reflecting and supporting the High
Representative's unique role and functions in the EU system.
The EEAS would help the High Representative ensure the consistency
and coordination of the Union's external action as well as prepare
policy proposals and implement them after their approval by Council.
It would also assist the Presidents of the European Council and
the Commission, as well as the Members of the Commission in their
respective functions in the area of external relations, and ensure
close cooperation with the Member States. The EEAS should be composed
of single geographical (i.e., covering all regions and countries)
and thematic desks, which would continue to perform under the
authority of the High Representative the tasks currently executed
by the relevant parts of the Commission and the Council Secretariat.
Trade and development policy as defined by the Treaty should remain
the responsibility of relevant Commissioners of the Commission.
17.7 With respect to its staffing:
— EEAS
staff should be appointed by the High Representative and drawn
from three sources: relevant departments of the General Secretariat
of the Council and of the Commission, and Member States' diplomatic
services. Recruitment should be based on merit, with the objective
of securing the services of staff of the highest standard of ability,
efficiency and integrity, while ensuring adequate geographical
balance;
— in
order to enable the High Representative to conduct the European
Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the EU's crisis management
structures should be part of the EEAS, under the direct authority
and responsibility of the High Representative.
17.8 The EEAS should be a service of a sui generis
nature, separate from the Commission and the Council Secretariat,
with administrative budget and staff management autonomy and its
own section in the EU budget, to which the usual budgetary and
control rules would apply, and which the High Representative would
propose and implement. It was to be guided by cost efficiency
and aim at budget neutrality.
17.9 Overseas, the Commission's delegations would
become Union delegations under the authority of the High Representative
and be part of the EEAS structure. They should contain both regular
EEAS staff (including Heads of Delegation) and staff from relevant
Commission services. All staff should work under the authority
of the Head of Delegation. EU delegations should work in close
cooperation with diplomatic services of the Member States and
play a supporting role as regards diplomatic and consular protection
of Union citizens in third countries.
The EEAS Council Decision
17.10 This is described in detail in the previous
Committee's first Report under reference.[58]
In its essentials, it appeared to be true to the European Council
guidelines.
17.11 The Council Decision requires the High Representative
to undertake a report on its functioning, to the Council, the
Commission and the European Parliament, followed by a full review
by mid-2013. The Decision stated that the reports would give particular
attention to three areas that had bedevilled the shaping of the
Decision:
— two
that reflect the fact that external relations remain the responsibility
of both the Commission and the EEAS, viz. the arrangements for
instructions given to EU delegations by the EEAS and the Commission
and arrangements for the management of external action instruments
and programming; and
— the
role of delegations in supporting Member States in their diplomatic
relations and providing consular protection to EU citizens.
17.12 When we considered the earlier report, the
Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) said that his focus had
been on ensuring that the Service established itself in a way
that was in the UK's interests, acting in those areas where it
had been agreed that it should act. The first year had presented
challenges, for instance in bringing together staff from three
different working cultures (Commission, Council and Member States)
in a context of dramatic foreign events. But the EEAS had begun
to have a positive impact on UK security and prosperity and had
"delivered new substance to the EU's external action":
viz., the Arab Spring, the Libyan crisis, the Middle East Peace
Process, the Iranian nuclear issue, counter-terrorism in the Horn
of Africa, policy towards key strategic partners and the Western
Balkans. He would continue to ensure the EEAS only acted in-line
with the Treaties, with a focus on areas where it could have a
positive impact on the UK's interests: the Government position
from the outset had been that the EEAS would "only represent
the UK where we agree that we want the EU to represent the Member
States and where we or the Treaties mandate them to do so",
e.g., agreed CFSP positions.
17.13 Noting that the report highlighted that providing
consular protection would be impossible on a resource neutral
basis, the Minister reiterated his view that Member States are
best placed to provide consular protection.
17.14 The EEAS was on target regarding its objective
of one third of policy staff coming from national diplomatic services
by mid-2013. The FCO promoted secondment to the EEAS as a stepping
stone in the career of talented UK officials; UK nationals already
held a number of senior positions, including on the EEAS Management
Board, and 200 British officials were estimated to be working
in the EEAS.
17.15 The 5.34% 2012 EEAS budget increase was argued
against strongly and accepted only as part of a wider deal that
saw the total increase in Heading 5 (the budget line for EU institutional
and administration costs) increase by just 1.3% in nominal terms,
which represented a real terms cut in EU administrative spending
that the Government considered to be a good deal for the UK taxpayer.
The Minister continued to remind the EEAS and other Member States
that the EEAS Council Decision committed the Service to the principle
of cost-efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality. The Minister
concluded in saying:
"HMG is committed to continuing to play a central
and leading role on the EU's external agenda. In 2012, we will
continue to engage actively with the EEAS to ensure it focuses
on delivering value for money for the UK taxpayer by promoting
British prosperity, security and values. We are clear that EU
action must not replace the work of national diplomatic services.
But working collaboratively can enhance the impact of UK bilateral
action. We want to see the EEAS concentrate on areas where EU
engagement adds value to action by Member States because of the
EU's particular weight and credibility — notably in the
Neighbourhood, with strategic and emerging powers, on conflict
prevention and development in Africa, and on Iran."
Our assessment
17.16 All in all, though these were early days,
we concluded that this report on the EEAS's first year was an
appropriate moment for these and other issues to be debated in
European Committee B.
17.17 That debate took place on 18 June 2012, at
the conclusion of which the Committee adopted a motion in which
it said that it:
"supports the Government's policy of engaging
actively with the European External Action Service to encourage
the EU to make the best use of its collective weight in the world
where the Member States of the EU agree to act together, and thus
to complement our national diplomatic efforts to promote British
and European prosperity, security and values."[59]
The High Representative' review
17.18 The HR says that the EEAS is guided by the
"conviction that Europe has a special role to play in today's
world". It has sought to make the best use of scarce financial
resources — and also to meet expectations that the EU should
support progress towards democracy and prosperity in countries
as varied as Libya and Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Mali and
Myanmar/Burma. The trust that people around the world are willing
to place in the EU is a vital asset: "conflicts thousands
of miles from our borders can damage our interests, while the
spread of peace, prosperity and democracy around the world is
good for Europe."
17.19 The EEAS is but one component of Europe's response
to this global challenge. It seeks to co-operate with, but not
replace, the important work done by Member States. The EEAS seeks
to add value by being more than a foreign ministry — combining
elements of a development and of a defence ministry. The EEAS
can be a catalyst to bring together the foreign policies of Member
States and strengthen the position of the EU in the world.
17.20 The review "reflects on what works and
what doesn't." After providing an assessment of the EEAS'
performance, Baroness Ashton concludes with a list of recommendations
for 24 short- and nine medium-term changes.[60]
While the list of issues raised is not exhaustive "and certainly
not the last word in good ideas", the HR believes that all
are important and necessary. She says that, given the limited
time since the EEAS' establishment in January 2011, the review
"deliberately concentrates on policy issues and possible
improvements without addressing what these would require in terms
of internal organisational changes, modifications in legal texts
or other wider issues to be considered as part of the institutional
transition in 2014."
The Government's view
17.21 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 27 August
2013, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) says that review
describes "the challenging backdrop against which the EEAS
was established, which included the Arab Spring and the economic
crisis", and records the EEAS' achievements to date. He
notes that Baroness Ashton states that the three main elements
of EU foreign policy that have emerged from the first two years
of operation of the service are (the Minister's italics):
"I) the neighbourhood where the EU has all
of the policies and instruments at its disposal to effect lasting
change; II) the Comprehensive Approach[61]
— which makes the EU uniquely able to tackle all aspects
of a foreign policy issue and III) those international issues
where only the EU's collective weight allows us to play a lead
role in today's globalised world."
17.22 The Minister continues thus:
"The Government agrees that, despite the difficult
circumstances in which the EEAS was established, it has begun
to enjoy some tangible achievements, including Baroness Ashton's
personal role in securing the Serbia-Kosovo agreement and in leading
the E3+3 process with Iran. In addition, we welcome the three
areas that Baroness Ashton has identified as the main elements
of EU foreign policy. We support the EEAS' focus on these and
other areas where EU Member States agree and where the EU's collective
weight in the world can support and complement UK international
objectives. This means, for example, ensuring that EU-wide levers
of influence, such as aid instruments, trade access and sanctions,
are deployed to reflect the foreign policy positions reached by
consensus in Council.
"The Government recognises the institutional
difficulties that Baroness Ashton has faced, including in bringing
together staff from three different working backgrounds (the Commission,
the Council Secretariat and Member States). It welcomes the steps
Baroness Ashton has taken to reach the 1/3 target for 'temporary
agents' from EU Member States, achieving an overall figure of
32.9% following the round of job vacancies coming vacant this
year. We recognise Baroness Ashton's commitment to maintaining
this level of temporary agents and hope that in the future this
figure can be considered as a minimum rather than a maximum.
"For its part, the Government will continue
to promote the EEAS as an attractive career option for talented
UK officials, so that it can ensure that the UK participates fully
in its work, both in Brussels and in the work of delegations abroad.
"The Government welcomes Baroness Ashton's recognition
that there are still outstanding issues to be resolved in the
functioning of the EEAS. To this end, we note the summary of
proposals for change at the end of the review. The Government's
view is that many of Baroness Ashton's recommendations are sensible
and would increase the efficiency of the EEAS, including the suggestion
of regular meetings of the group of Commissioners responsible
for external relations, chaired by the High Representative/Vice-President,
or of simplification of the administrative budget of EU delegations.
Other recommendations made by Baroness Ashton would clearly contribute
to UK and wider EU security, including by embedding the Comprehensive
Approach to crisis management, in order to improve the rapidity,
flexibility and impact of the EU's response to crises. Following
discussions earlier this year, the Government also welcomes the
suggestion of a review of the mandates and roles of EUSRs. If
such a review takes place, we will push hard to ensure this focuses
on, inter alia, the current very generous terms and conditions."
17.23 The Minister then says that there are some
proposals that the Government "cannot accept and will oppose",
viz:
"For instance, the Government's view remains
that the EEAS should not have a role in providing consular assistance,
given that it is a Member State competence. Equally, we believe
that defence engagement should remain primarily the responsibility
of individual Member States and so we remain cautious about attempts
to establish a formal network of military and civilian security
experts in EU delegations.
"In other areas, we would need further clarification
of the implications of the recommendations, including what Baroness
Ashton means by "addressing residual competence issues"
and "reinforcing EEAS capacity for external aspects of
key EU policies". We will remain vigilant against any
threat of competence creep on the part of the EEAS.
It is essential that the EEAS continue to complement and support
— and not replace — national diplomatic services.
Throughout discussions on the recommendations in the autumn we
will also underline the necessity for any recommendations formally
adopted to be taken forward on a resource neutral basis, in line
with the 2010 EEAS Council Decision.
"The Government notes that Baroness Ashton's
proposals are divided into short and medium-term recommendations.
Many of the proposals could be implemented without changes to
the EEAS legal framework. Some, however, in particular amongst
the medium-term recommendations, would require legal changes,
including by re-opening the 2010 EEAS Council Decision. We are
cautious about proposals to amend the EEAS legal framework, as
we fear this could lead to lengthy institutional debates that
could detract from the work of the EEAS on foreign policy priorities.
However, this review is not itself a proposal for legislation
nor an act having legal effect."
17.24 With regard to the Financial Implications,
the Minister says:
"The EEAS is funded from Heading Five, the EU's
budget for institutional and administration costs. The EEAS'
2013 budget, as agreed in December 2012, is €508,762,493,
which constitutes less than 1% of the overall EU budget. The
EEAS has requested a 3.1% increase to its budget for 2014. The
Government is opposed to increases in the EEAS budget, which it
considers unacceptable in the current fiscal climate. Baroness
Ashton is well aware of the UK position. The EEAS' 2014 budget
will be considered as part of wider, ongoing, discussions on the
overall 2014 EU budget.
"We will continue to remind the EEAS that the
Council Decision that established it committed it to the principle
of "cost efficiency aiming towards budget neutrality".
17.25 The Minister concludes his comments by saying
that:
"The Government looks forward to substantive
discussions on the EEAS review beginning in the autumn, where
we will ensure that the UK's interests are maintained. In doing
so, we note Baroness Ashton's assertion that the EEAS has developed
its capacities to engage with national Parliaments in Member States.
We hope that ongoing discussions with the EEAS can include consideration
on how to further strengthen this engagement."
Conclusion
17.26 The Minister is somewhat vague about these
further discussions, saying only that they will begin between
senior officials in Brussels on 24 September, with the subsequent
steps being unclear, but possibly including "a discussion
in Council."
17.27 The December European Council will discuss
proposals on "CSDP Effectiveness and Impact", "Capabilities"
and the "European Defence Industry". The Commission
Communication on this latter is considered in a separate chapter
of this Report.[62]
There, we reproduce a letter to the Committee in which the Minister
sets out the Government's objectives for the December European
Council under each of these headings. The HR's proposals on the
first two headings are expected in September: as the Minister
knows, we expect them to be deposited for scrutiny in the normal
way.
17.28 There is plainly a degree of "read
across" between the HR's review and the first two headings.
There is every likelihood that it would be appropriate to debate
the HR's review before the December European Council. Before
that, however, we would like the Minister to write to us at the
end of October, to let us know how the discussions on it have
progressed — particularly with regard to the issues of concern
that he has highlighted — and how the review is to be handled
thereafter.
- In the meantime, we shall retain the document
under scrutiny.
58 See headnote: (31439) 8029/10: HC 5-xvii (2009-10),
chapter 1 (7 April 2010). Back
59
The record of the debate is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmgeneral/euro/120618/120618s01.htm
(Gen Co Deb, European Committee B, 18 June 2012, cols 3-26). Back
60
The latter is reproduced at the Annex to this chapter of our Report. Back
61
The "Comprehensive Approach" is explained fully at http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/structures-instruments-agencies/index_en.htm.
At its heart is the Crisis Management and Planning Directorate:
it "contributes to the objectives of the European External
Action Service, the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)
and a more secure international environment by the political-strategic
planning of CSDP civilian missions and military operations, ensuring
coherence and effectiveness of those actions as part of the EU
comprehensive approach to crisis management and developing CSDP
partnerships, policies, concepts and capabilities". Back
62
See (35234) 12773/13 at chapter 23 of this Report. Back
| 
