Split over Commission plan for foreign secretary

Date: 31/10/02

By Dana Spinant

THE European Commission is set to face fierce opposition if, as expected, it proposes the creation of a 'foreign secretary' under its control to coordinate the Union's external relations, Convention insiders warn.

Peter Hain, representing the British government on the Convention, said that while London supports the idea of a foreign secretary, he or she would have to be based in the Council, not the EU executive, as there is no agreement for transferring powers over foreign affairs to the Commission.

'We want to see a foreign secretary, but he has to be based in the Council, and work closely with the Commission,' Hain told European Voice.

Senior Convention officials agree. They say the Commission would not be the right institution to run the EU's foreign policy, as it was created for making laws, not diplomacy.

Moreover, there is no political will for increasing the Commission's grip over foreign affairs.

Yet the Commission plans to unveil its landmark proposal on 18 November.

The new foreign secretary would be a vice-president of the Commission, but responsible to the Council.

The Commission believes that the current roles of high representative for foreign affairs (the post held currently by Javier Solana) and commissioner for external relations (Chris Patten) must be merged if the Union's external actions are to become more coherent.

The plan has been drawn up by Michel Barnier, commissioner for regional affairs and institutional reform.

'This idea would bring trust in the EU's system, instead of introducing new problems or rivalries' the Frenchman told this newspaper.

'A president of the Council, in charge of foreign relations, would complicate the system,' he added.

Barnier is confident his idea will win support. 'It is mid-way between what the French and what the Germans want, and it would be acceptable to the Brits as well.'

Barnier's foreign secretary would be in charge of both the tabling of proposals and implementation.

He would exercise the right of initiative 'in concert with the Council,' to whom he would be responsible. 'We need a new formula to accommodate that, and we must use imagination,' the commissioner explained.

The foreign secretary would be backed by just one bureaucracy, based on the Commission's external relations service and Council secretariat, plus diplomats from member states.

'This is the only solution' Barnier insisted.

However, one senior Convention official voiced scepticism.

The official said: 'Imagine a crisis in Algeria on a Sunday night. What could the foreign secretary do?

'Wait until Monday for the meeting of the heads of cabinet [of commissioners] and then wait again until Wednesday for the commissioners' meeting before eventually doing something by the end of the week?'

But the Commission's unsuitability for a diplomatic role is not the chief problem, as long as a lack of political will to invest the Commission with powers over foreign policy persists.

'If there is a transfer of competencies to the Commission over foreign affairs, we could eventually imagine such a foreign secretary: but this is science fiction,' the Convention official said.

He pointed to the reluctance of a number of member states, not least the UK, which has warned that the European Union will only have a common foreign and security policy as long as it stays in the hands of governments.

The European Commission is set to face fierce opposition if, as expected, it proposes the creation of a 'foreign secretary' under its control to coordinate the Union's external relations.