A diplomatic service, in flagrante delicto of geographical imbalance
For those who look carefully at the first complete organization chart of the diplomatic service (1), one fact quickly becomes apparent: the geographical imbalance is obvious. And the place reserved for the defense authorities is, to say the least, “atypical”.
British and Norse rule
In the distribution of the nationalities of the principal persons in charge of the diplomatic service, one can notice, in fact, a massive domination of the Anglo-Saxons. A keen observer counts around twenty Britons and Irish. The recent appointment of a diplomat from the Foreign Office, hitherto British ambassador to Ghana (and Ivory Coast) as director of the Africa department thus appears to be the crowning achievement of this domination. By adding the countries of similar sensitivity (Nordic, Dutch, Irish, etc.), the majority is even more overwhelming.
The French but especially the Latin countries and the founding countries put aside
At first sight, the French seem the first victims of this distribution. Admittedly, French people are appointed to important positions: in the general secretariat of the Service, in the European Defense Agency and in the Middle East department (these two positions being, moreover, held by people already present in a position of first plan in the external European administration). But below, it's rather “peanuts”. Few heads of units, that is to say the "primary" place where most of the decisions are planned.
Translating this description into a hex defeat is reductive and somewhat misleading, however. It is, in fact, all the representatives with a Latin tradition (Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, etc.) who are reduced to a bare minimum. And even beyond that are the founding countries: the Europe of Ten in 1981 toasts. If the Germans are not doing too badly, there are also few Belgians or Luxembourgers.
The countries of Eastern Europe, which had sounded the tocsin very early on, are proportionally much better off, with three of their own in the "committee of 12" (the "corporate and policy boards"): a Pole, a Slovak and a Romanian. Their lobbying, well prepared and well relayed to the European Parliament, therefore seems to have been received 5 out of 5 by the High Representative.
NB: I do not mention the distribution of men / women - which deserves an article on its own - where the imbalance is even more obvious: 1 only woman in the "committee of 12". And this imbalance continues at all levels of the hierarchical ladder.
A rebalancing necessary, emergency
In fact, the diplomatic service today presents an imbalance that is too great and too visible to be able to claim to reflect all the sensitivities and foreign policies of the Member States. In the current state, the provisions prescribing geographical balance in the decision establishing the diplomatic service do not seem to be really respected (*).
It is therefore necessary to remedy this fact in one way or another. The High Representative and the Secretary General of the diplomatic service still have some leeway. Twenty positions are vacant. At the higher level, three posts still need to be filled, which primarily concern European defense policy: the director of the "horizontal" department, the director of the CMPD, as well as, soon, the director of the CPCC, the State- civil crisis major (the Dutchman Klompenhouwer quitting his post quickly).
Another key to a possible evolution, in the medium term: some of the "cased" names should soon retire, such as Roger Moore, deputy director of the Africa department. We will then see if the replacements compensate for this original imbalance.
Isolated defense institutions
How not to speak, finally, of the structures of defense. Only three small squares, floating at the top of an organization chart, symbolize what is supposed to be one of the pillars of the common foreign and security policy. Admittedly, this is only an organization chart, the main purpose of which is to enable each of the agents of the former DG Relex of the European Commission or of the former external directorate of the Council to better situate their administrative attachment in the new diplomatic service. But it is all the same very symbolic of the lack of importance that is given to civil-military crisis management structures. It is also very badly perceived internally.
Is this the price to pay for having institutions that are not reduced to the common standard, as defended in particular by France? Or to keep these subjects under the control of the sovereignty of the Member States, as defends the United Kingdom? Is this the additional mark of the low interest of the High Representative on these subjects? Whatever interpretation is found, it marks a state of mind that needs to be changed. If only in the name of a certain European ambition that the High Representative, Cathy Ashton, must defend.
(*) Two provisions provide for this balance: Articles 6.6 and 6.8 of the decision. 6. Recruitment within the EEAS shall be merit-based while ensuring an adequate geographical and gender balance… 8. … while taking care to ensure an adequate balance both geographically and between men and women and to have within the EEAS a significant number of nationals of all the Member States of the Union. shall be transferred to the EEAS. Officials and temporary agents occupying a post within the framework of the services or functions listed in the Annex shall be transferred to the EEAS.(1) Read also:
