To show the lack of transparency of the European Union institutions, Henry Kissinger, when he was US Secretary of State, had asked that if he wanted to call Europe, he did not know who to call.
The European Commission, in particular, certainly lived up to the reputation of the administrative opaqueness so prominent in international and regional organisations. Did this situation in the EU change with the Lisbon Treaty? Some think it has become worse.
The Lisbon Treaty was supposed to rationalise the way the EU worked by introducing a permanent president of the European Council and a permanent foreign policy chief. Once the treaty struggled through its approval process these two major positions were established rather quickly.
What was not determined just as quickly was how these two ‘super’ positions were to rationalise the work of the European Commission in particular and the EU in general.
The perception, at least, is that the president of the Council duplicates some of the work and role of the country holding the six-month presidency and the president of the Commission. The permanent ‘foreign minister’ duplicates the work and role of some of the commissioners and of the foreign minister of the rotating EU presidency, if not of the foreign ministers of the 27 member countries.
The staffing of these two major positions is still apparently being determined, but is certainly bound to overlap with other elements both inside and outside the Commission.
The European External Action Services, with an executive secretary general and two deputies, sounds more like a new super- structure rather than a new unit of a more streamlined EU.
That the European Union countries approved such a structure is in contradiction with what they have preached for the past few decades at the UN as well as in other international organisations; namely the virtues of administrative simplicity, transparency and budgetary restraint. This does not help their crediblity vis-a-vis the outside world.
The treaty may have developed into a better one if the people, rather than governments, had more of a say. Of course, from experience it was also likely that if the people had more say it would have probably never become a reality, certainly not in its current format.
Polls in the UK and even Malta at the time of the first Irish referendum support the view that the man-in-the-street was not as enthusiastic as the governments that represent him.
But now the Lisbon Treaty is a reality and the EU is definitely in post-Lisbon mode. The EU and its institutions not only have to be more transparent and more streamlined, but also have to be perceived as such.
The perception, at least, is that the new EU permanent president is still playing second fiddle to the rotating presidency, and the president of the Commission and the European External Action Services (new office of the EU Foreign Affairs High Representative) is yet far from finding its feet.
This would have been unacceptable even in a normal situation in the EU, but we are not living in normal times. With the euro crisis, the Greek budgetary problems, and the looming problems in other EU members there is need for drastic action to support the multi-billion euro rescue fund.
The Lisbon Treaty should have placed the EU in a stronger position to deal with the present euro crisis. It does not seem to be doing this. Apart from the Franco-German intervention and initiatives very little is seen to be done in response to the crisis. Maybe this test for European solidarity has come too soon after the ratification of the treaty to expect better results.
At least, does the treaty make it easier for Henry Kissinger to call Europe? Hardly.