It is probably not intentional that the European Union, comprising some of the most advanced countries on the planet, makes it so difficult for others outside Europe (and perhaps for some inside it too) to understand how it works.
Apart from understanding its numerous institutions, one may find the transparency of the Union as regards its relationship with the rest of the world somewhat elusive.
The high representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is also the secretary-general of the Council of the European Union and, as such, is its senior diplomat. He is probably seen outside Europe as equivalent to a Foreign Minister of the European Union, and his post may in fact become so, once the new Constitution for Europe becomes effective on November 1, 2006, if ratified by all 25 member states.
Article 23 of the Treaty on European Union states that he shall "assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue". Without an EU common foreign and security policy in place his work is bound to be difficult, particularly since the individual member states retain independent control in this area.
Internal negotiation
The Commissioner for External Relations (and European neighbourhood policy) is also a quasi Foreign Minister, who is responsible for the formulation of an effective and coherent external relations policy for the EU and ensures that the Commission has a clear identity and a coherent approach in its external activities and is responsible for its relations with international organisations, including the United Nations.
Then there is the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid who is in charge of all relations with the outside World, including of course international institutions, in all matters dealing with development and humanitarian affairs.
Finally the Commissioner for Trade is the face of the Union for trade and commerce, and represents the EU at the WTO and conducts all trade negotiations on behalf of the 25, once there is a broad mandate from them. The other 22 Commissioners in various areas of competence may also have some relationship with the outside world.
All this may sound somewhat cumbersome but is not too unclear! At least not until one also considers other EU foreign policy protagonists, namely the Presidency, the foreign minister of the country holding the Presidency and of course the separate foreign ministers of the other 24 member countries, who still retain individual control in the area of foreign and security policy. Rightly so, they all play a role in doing business with the outside world.
It is not that there is no explanation or logic for this set-up, but for the EU to play a leading role in international affairs and to set an example of good governance this is not enough. It has also to be perceived by the outside world to have efficient, effective and transparent foreign policy machinery.
In the area of trade and commerce, the Commission has a special role and speaks on behalf of the EU at the WTO and in bilateral negotiations. In other areas, the Presidency usually is the face of the EU to the outside world. But the formulation of a common foreign and security policy of the EU sometimes puts the member states in a position where they have to negotiate internally and, once an agreement, most often a consensus, is reached, which is hardly ever easy, they have again to negotiate when the EU position is discussed with the outside, whether bilaterally or multilaterally, at the UN or at other international institutions.
One cannot rule out that sometimes it is not possible to develop a common EU position and therefore the dissenting member or two, or more, will then be on their own and will be free to make their views heard, in addition to those of the EU.
How does the EU, for example, prepare its contribution to the UN summit in September inter alia, on the Millennium Development goals and UN reform, certainly an important item on the international agenda, which should be given due significance by all concerned? How do all the forces at play, referred to above, fine-tune the EU's contribution to such an important international event, as that of the UN summit?
Clearly, the EU will be represented at the summit by the President of the EU and the President of the Commission. It is certain that the heads of state or government of the other 24 countries will also be present. It is the task of the above-mentioned foreign policy machinery to prepare the position of the EU. It is not easy given the complexity of the subject, particularly on UN reform for a common position to materialise.
The previous EU Commission made it perfectly clear that the EU's dynamic role in UN affairs should be further developed to become more commensurate with its contribution ($300 million per year for development and humanitarian aid alone). The previous Commissioner for External Relations stated before leaving that, as the largest contributor to the UN, the EU must find concrete ways of increasing its political influence in the UN system.
UN reform
There is no indication that this policy position will change under the present Commission. The European Commission has just approved a package on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) aiming to speed up progress towards these goals by increasing the volume and effectiveness of the development aid provided by the Commission and EU member states.
According to the current Commissioner for Development, this commitment would put the EU, already the world's largest aid donor, well on its way to achieving the MDG target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) by 2015.
This will certainly be a significant development to report to the summit in September, and something for the rest of the advanced countries to emulate. It is however doubtful whether a recommitment in September to the MDGs is the only medicine that the world needs now to make it more secure, fair and just for all.
The report of the 16 eminent persons assembled by the UN, entitled A more secure world: our shared responsibility, dealt with the inter-relationship of the forces that unleash threats, challenges and change and how such forces might be brought under control. In his report In larger freedom, the Secretary-General supported most of recommendations of the panel, and gave a few of his own. He called on the member states to act decisively on the recommendations, including those on UN reform.
This is a challenge not only for the EU but for all the member states of the UN. The recommendations that governments will have to consider during the summit are numerous and it will be easy for member states to select those recommendations that they like, for example, those that will not go against their own foreign policy. As a result, they may ignore some important ones. The Secretary-General warned against this in his above-mentioned report.
The panel itself could not agree on a recommendation to reform the Security Council and gave two recommendations to make it more representative. The question of the veto remained unsettled and the Secretary-General decided to leave the matter of the reform of the Security Council in the hands of the member states.
This is a tall order for the member states, since it is debateable whether a formula that does not address the veto will ever bring the most important organ of the United Nations in line with the present geo-political realities.
The leadership of the EU can be decisive in forging consensus on many of the recommendations of the panel and of the Secretary-General, but the reform of the Security Council is probably one area where the quest for a common position of the 25 is very difficult to attain and therefore it is too much to expect a breakthrough at the summit in this regard.
It may, of course, be too early to come to this conclusion. But the ball is definitely in the court of the member states, all the member states of the United Nations and not only those of the European Union.