Although the debate about the institutional changes that the Lisbon treaty will bring has only recently resumed, it already sounds retrograde. Each EU institution is doing what it does best: fighting for its own turf. This is particularly so as regards the European External Action Service (EEAS), which will force changes in both the Council of Ministers secretariat, which serves EU states, and the European Commission.

The European Parliament needs to re-frame the discussion, so that it addresses the core question: what a modern diplomatic system able to advance the EU’s most important priorities in new and innovative ways should look like.

Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys

And modernisation of the system is essential. The EU’s current institutional negotiations, about the autonomy of the EEAS and its responsibilities, seem to miss how international affairs have changed, especially on issues such as climate change, and how the EU should model its organisational set-up to deal with these changes. At present, discussions reflect too much the traditions of diplomacy evident when diplomatic practices were originally codified in the 18th century.

One area where a new approach would particularly help is climate change. So far, the EU’s environmental policies have been mainly domestic (exemplified by the emissions trading scheme), and statist; that is, focused on persuading other states to support its position on international climate negotiations. The Council has been responsible for international climate negotiations; the Commission for internal policies and climate-related programming abroad. Both have guarded their territory, rather than co-operated.

Bilateral and multilateral programmes have been a second-order priority and co-operation with non-state actors such as cities and regions has been limited. But with the prospects of a deal next month at the climate talks in Copenhagen diminishing and, with it, faith in state-to-state negotiations, it is vital that the EU is able to engage sub-state actors, such as cities and regions, in ways that supplement the traditional multilateral approach adopted in the Copenhagen process.

This new kind of diplomacy requires high-profile, well-resourced, multi-agency campaigns that can shape public and elite opinion around the world as well as develop environmental policies for a range of stake-holders, from states to regions to cities. The EEAS should be given the mandate to carry out such an innovative approach.

The EU’s new diplomatic set-up should be staffed, and structured, so that it can work with those cities and regions that are willing to lower their CO2 emissions even if their governments are not.

The Lisbon treaty is meant to herald the emergence of a new world actor. We are also in a new world of diplomacy, where sub-state and non-state actors matter, and in a world where some of our most fundamental issues are global. Our new diplomatic system needs to reflect that.

From:

Franziska Brantner MEP

Brussels

and

Daniel Korski

European Council on Foreign RelationsLondon