The make-up of the European External Action Service (EEAS) has been largely finalised following protracted discussions between the institutions, but internal conflict still remains over its exact role in development policy. At the last plenary session in Strasbourg, MEPs finally agreed, by a large majority, to the creation of the new service, which essentially represents the EU’s foreign and diplomatic services, after much back-and-forth dealing between the Parliament and Council. MEPs, enlivened after the Lisbon Treaty ratification, have secured scrutiny over the new service’s budget, as well as insisting that most of its employees come from existing EU officials. In addition to voting on its budget the Parliament also gets to ensue that no administrative or financial changes can take place without the say-so of it members. All in all, MEPs were content with their say in the matter, crowing wildly about their particular oversight role.

But divisions between the Council and Commission have also emerged, highlighting the fact that the inception of the EEAS will be a far from smooth process.

Initially, the EEAS was conceived as a kind of rapid response unit dealing with the problems thrown up by natural disasters to conflicts; the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, as well as the civil war in the Congo were drivers for its conception, and this ethos remains somewhat to this day with the offices of Kristalina Georgieva and, even, Connie Hedegaard being created in the new college of commissioners. As such, the EEAS is expected to bring together in a coherent and multi-faceted way the expectations of both internal and external EU policy; institutional decisions channelled smoothly through a global service. All this is fine, except that DG Development, the most obvious partners in an EU-wide push for international co-operation, have been sadly exposed by the formation of the EAS. As it stands, the Commission’s development arm looks likely to be split under this new arrangement. It currently has about 300 employees, about half of whom are expected to be subsumed into the new service, with departments dealing in governance and thematics being divided, and geographical desks being totally incorporated into the new service.

This would leave a rump DG Development, which would probably be restructured along with Aidco. Respected think tank Overseas Development Institute (ODI) have highlighted the fact that under the wording of the agreed text, issues relating to the European Development Fund and Development Co-operation instrument must be agreed jointly by the High Representative and the Development Commissioner, a situation that demands strong development input at all levels. Other think tanks have suggested a strong development arm of the EEAS, including a Director General responsible for development issues.

DG Development is currently pondering its future, with plans and ideas being drafted on how best to approach its possible consumption by the EEAS. One senior figure has circulated a letter detailing how DEV can be totally incorporated into the new service; which would please the likes of the ODI, as well as providing the first candidate for that Director General job.