The Goldilocks of Supranational Supergovernments

France is proud of having a diplomatic apparatus that resembles an industrial scale powerhouse. The EU’s “External Action Service” seems otherwise to be too large by half, even in its crib, writes Boris Biancheri in La Stampa [IT] [EN] .

As always, at the heart of the dealing lies the question of the distribution of power among the various players, who represent the different branches of the EU: How are tasks distributed between the Commission and this new service, notably in the sensitive dossiers concerning development aid and humanitarian projects? How much control will the Parliament have over the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and this new diplomatic service? Who will be responsible for its administration?
Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The one question that goes unasked is: “how can anyone ELSE deal with them?” The question doesn’t seem to come up.

Behind the struggle waged by each of the principal actors to defend his or her role and privileges, there remain certain questions on basic principles: the Commission is a supranational organisation, as is the Parliament; conversely, the Council, to which Lady Ashton is attached, is composed of sovereign states. This indirectly creates yet another battlefield for proponents of collective action versus the interests of individual sovereign states.

The other individual sovereign states, that is to say the rest of the world, on the other hand, will continue to find them to be just another squabbling and infighting party to deal with in among 27-30 other entities that Europeans represent themselves in global dialog.

Without some logical order of precedence, ‘federalization’ of authority, or separation of powers, how, in heavens’ name, are they to be taken seriously or dealt with in with any more seriousness as a well-meaning delegation from the Lions’ Club?

In truth, you aren’t. You’re just supposed to designate them as relevant, important, and render them the respect that comes with experience and authority: each of which they have absolutely none of.

The Community machine has in the past known the problems of gargantuan bureaucracy, where the desire for prestige mixes with national ambitions: some have already placed their bets on the identity of the future Secretary General of the new European diplomatic corps, which will probably be – Hear, hear! – a Frenchman, the ambassador Vimont, flanked by – and not by chance – a German woman. However, it would be a shame if the first child of the Treaty of Lisbon were not the embryo of a concrete and efficient external policy, but rather just another weighty bureaucracy, the fruit of secret agreements, with no identity of its own.

Biancheri’s clarity of thinking needs to be applauded, as he asks that if one is to establish this new leviathan, that it do what its’ assigned to actually do:

At a time where public opinion is focused on harmonising divergent national interests and stabilising the euro and political objectives within the EU, allowing little consideration for external political policy. At a time when everyone can see that the larger external issues facing the EU, including dealings with Russia, Turkey and the United States, have met with more divergence than agreement. And finally, at a time when it is more than ever necessary to have a concrete sense of reality, one wonders if it is in the EU's best interests to advance a project whose function and role have yet to be clearly defined.

Odds on, it will molt away over and over for a decade or two until it gets there, but be little more than a make-work outfit for former newspaper-writes who can tie a necktie, and mop up an army of recent “peace studies” graduates.

Good luck with all that.