VZCZCXRO7531
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHRN RUEHROV
DE RUEHBS #0464/01 0881521
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 281521Z MAR 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHSS/OECD POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000464 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USAID FOR ODP AND E&E, BUDAPEST FOR USAID/RSC; PARIS FOR 
USOECD GEORGE CARNER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID EUN
SUBJECT: EU APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT IN A POST-LISBON WORLD 
 
REF: A. (A) 2008 BRUSSELS 00397 
     ¶B. (B) 2008 BRUSSELS 00303 
     ¶C. (C) 2008 BRUSSELS 3488 
 
¶1. (U)  SUMMARY:  Even as the Lisbon Treaty moves through the 
ratification process among individual EU states, discussions 
are underway in Brussels on what it will mean in any number 
of areas, including development.  At a recent forum organized 
to address these concerns, there was widespread consensus 
that the Lisbon Treaty will give Europe a louder and more 
consistent voice on development.  In addition, there is a 
strong sense that the Lisbon Treaty will make links between 
development and a range of other foreign policy 
issues-including trade, migration, agricultural policy, 
climate change and security-more explicit than ever before. 
This message, building on previous USEU reporting on the 
Treaty of Lisbon (REFTELS), is one in a series that is meant 
to put the forthcoming EU reforms in perspective and to 
assess their potential impact on our relations with the EU. 
END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. (U) While the Lisbon Treaty will affect many aspects of EU 
operations, there are particular provisions that will have a 
marked impact on EU foreign policy, including development 
assistance.  Most notably, the post of High Representative 
for Common and Foreign Security Policy (currently held by 
Javier Solana) will be merged with that of Commissioner for 
External Relations and Neighborhood Policy (currently held by 
Benita Ferrero-Waldner) to create the new position of High 
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security 
Policy who will serve simultaneously as chair of the 
influential General Affairs and External Relations Council 
and Vice-President of the European Commission. The new High 
Representative would have at his or her disposal a diplomatic 
service called the "European External Action Service" (EEAS), 
staffed by officials working at the Council and Commission as 
well as member states. 
 
¶3. (U) The new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and 
Security Policy would coordinate all of the EU's external 
policy areas, including foreign and security policies that 
currently fall under the remit of the Council, as well as 
those for which the Commission has competence, including 
development, trade, economic cooperation, and humanitarian 
aid.  Some Europeans are concerned this new alignment will 
"politicize" European aid, while others argue it reflects a 
pragmatic reality and gives EU aid new importance. 
 
¶4. (U) EU officials, parliamentarians and representatives 
from the NGO and business community met recently in Brussels 
for an expansive discussion on the future of European 
development assistance. Sponsored by leading Brussels think 
tank Friends of Europe, the event was titled:  "Does the 
Treaty of Lisbon Promise a New Era for EU Development Aid?" 
Most participants, while dubious about prospects for a "new 
era," were cautiously optimistic that the Lisbon Treaty will 
give Europe the framework needed to speak with a louder and 
more cohesive voice. 
 
¶5. (U) Gareth Thomas, UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of 
State for the Department of International Development, 
launched the discussion with the comment that "European 
development will be better because of Lisbon."  Noting that 
Europe now contributes well over half of all official 
development assistance (and will contribute as much as 
two-thirds by 2010), Thomas stated that aid from the EU and 
its member states should reflect "common principles, common 
strategies and common objectives."  He added that the Lisbon 
Treaty enshrines poverty alleviation as a major development 
concern. 
 
¶6. (U) Perhaps the theme that recurred most often throughout 
the day was that the Lisbon Treaty will ensure that EU aid is 
more closely integrated with other foreign policy concerns, 
including trade, agricultural policy, migration, climate 
change and security. Most participants appeared to endorse 
this shift, though some NGOs expressed concern about the 
"politicization" of the EU aid effort. 
 
¶7. (U) Comments by Members of Parliament participating 
reflected a continued concern that EU development funding is 
not visible enough, partly because of a heavy reliance on 
budget support.  "All too often, the EU is a global payer but 
 
BRUSSELS 00000464  002 OF 003 
 
 
not a global player," stated Elmar Brok, an influential 
member of the European Parliamentary committee on Foreign 
Affairs, echoing a comment that is often heard in 
parliamentary circles in Brussels.  He noted that the 
European public generally supports aid while also wanting 
more accountability and more evidence of results. 
 
¶8. (U)  Although the Lisbon Treaty will initiate a gradual 
reduction in the number of Commissioners, many participants 
supported the idea of designating one Commissioner with 
authority to handle the EU's entire aid portfolio.  Such a 
Commissioner would also serve as a "strong, independent 
voice" on development issues.  Others applauded the EU trend 
toward decentralization in the field, suggesting that EU 
development officials should play an important and in some 
cases central role when European "embassies" are established 
as part of the EU's new, post Lisbon foreign affairs 
structure. 
 
¶9. (U) Patrick Child, Head of Cabinet for EU Commissioner for 
External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy Benita 
Ferrero-Waldner, stated that development policy had already 
been a "big success story" for the EU, claiming that Europe 
"leads the international debate."  He cited three significant 
challenges:  (1) member states should reach the 0.7 percent 
of GDP aid contribution target (only five of 27 EU countries 
meet this goal); (2) cohesion is needed, both within the EU 
and among bilateral assistance programs; and (3) strategic 
links must be made between development assistance and other 
pressing foreign policy concerns. 
 
¶10. (U) Simon Stocker, Director of Eurostep, a network of 
European development NGOs, commented that Lisbon is important 
because it will place "development at the center of Europe's 
relations with less developed countries".  Although Lisbon 
recognizes poverty alleviation as a central goal, it also 
highlights the importance of security and good governance. 
Stocker suggested that European aid programs are often too 
dependent on the personalities of those involved, rather than 
relying on effective systems and structures. He further 
suggested that accountability concerns were not adequately 
dealt with in the Lisbon treaty, adding that the Commission 
is slated to receive more power while oversight 
responsibility by parliament will remain limited. 
 
¶11. (U) Many participants expressed interest in the 
"architecture" and "structure" of European development 
institutions following approval of the Lisbon Treaty. 
However, the several EU officials present offered little more 
than speculation, emphasizing that it is inappropriate to 
comment on implementation mechanisms until the treaty is 
first ratified. 
 
¶12. (U) References to the "architecture of aid" quickly 
turned to a discussion on accountability and authority.  All 
agreed that it was increasingly difficult to put forward a 
cohesive and effective institutional response in an ever more 
complex world. "The principal of subordination won't work," 
one participant claimed, cautioning against the tendency to 
evoke centralization or a consolidation of authority as the 
answer to every problem.  "Rather, any new Commissioner with 
a lead foreign policy role will have to manage the interplay 
between many different organizations and elements, all 
representing different aspects of foreign policy." 
 
¶13. (U) Several other points were briefly mentioned.  For 
example, one businessman suggested that the EU needs to 
better understand the relationship between private business 
and economic development. Similarly, a representative from a 
Baltic embassy insisted the Eastern Europe experience is 
relevant in the developing world, suggesting there should be 
scope for emerging donors with this kind of experience to 
play a more active role in the EU's development approach in 
the future.  Finally, there was a recurring sense that 
implementation is the biggest challenge of all.  Citing a 
number of declarations and other official documents that have 
been issued in recent years ranging from Monterey to Paris, 
there was an empathic suggestion on the part of some that 
there is "no need for any more declarations; now is the time 
to move on". 
 
¶14. (SBU) COMMENT:  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of 
this discussion was the extent to which development 
 
BRUSSELS 00000464  003 OF 003 
 
 
discussions in Europe mirror those that often take place in 
policy and academic circles in the US.  There is a strong 
sense that development is more closely linked than ever to a 
range of vital foreign policy issues, including migration, 
trade, agriculture and security.  Issues of coordination, 
effectiveness and accountability also represent important 
areas of concern.  That said, discussions on the 
"architecture" of foreign assistance typically lead to the 
conclusion that there is ultimately no one, best 
institutional approach.  On the contrary, every new structure 
is less than perfect and usually leads to a new and different 
set of issues and concerns. Optimistically, where the Lisbon 
Treaty might make an important difference for Europe is in 
its recognition that aid is closely linked to other foreign 
policy issues; its affirmation of the importance of a 
unified, cohesive policy voice; and its endorsement in 
continuing a trend toward more delegation of authority to the 
field. 
 
¶15. (SBU) While the EU's internal debate on the future 
framework of EU assistance has certainly begun and key 
Commission contacts tell us that an institutional shake-up is 
very likely, it seems that no definitive reform plan has yet 
emerged. Commission officials, perhaps still cognizant of the 
failure of the Constitutional Treaty, have instead adopted a 
"wait and see" mentality pending ratification of the Lisbon 
Treaty. 
 
MURRAY