Belgium will start its six months at the helm of the Council of the EU fresh from parliamentary elections – not the best auspices to steer the Union through its long list of priorities for foreign policy during the second half of 2010. However, one of its more interesting aspects may well be a sort of osmosis between the President of the European Council and the rotating presidency because of their shared nationality.

Indeed, this scenario is all the more likely if one takes into account the first months of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The Spanish Presidency saw its role in international affairs diminish, as President Obama’s decision not to travel to Madrid to the EU-US Summit exemplified, while Herman van Rompuy has repeatedly indicated an intention to fully exploit his treaty-given role in the “external representation of the EU”.

Some clarity over the roles of the three new positions created by the Lisbon Treaty (President of the European Council, Commission President, and High Representative/Vice President of the Commission) would certainly be helpful especially for the outside world; given that the EU’s international agenda will be pressing. Among the most important meetings scheduled are the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) Summit in October and the UN Climate Change Summit in Mexico at the end of the year – and Belgium will have to play its role in fostering an EU negotiating position for the summit.

But the European External Action Service (EEAS) will be the top priority in the months to come. The future shape of the European diplomatic service created by the Lisbon Treaty still hangs in the balance, and the final decision on its status, composition and remit may well drift into the second part of the year, given the current state of the debate between the European Parliament, which wants the new structure to be politically and financially accountable, and the Council, where Member States had struggled to find an agreement on a draft text.

The institutional and bureaucratic battle of the first few months of 2010 has shown what the key challenge in setting up and implementing the EEAS will be, notwithstanding possible changes requested by the Parliament. Avoiding the duplication of services between the future EEAS and the Commission, ensuring synergies between the political and strategic functions that will be part of the new service and the management of the aid instruments that remain in the Commission, such as the European Development Fund and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument, are no easy task in the light of the turf war of the past weeks.

The draft text leaves space for interpretation regarding responsibilities, accountability and hierarchy. For instance, as things stand now, some staff in Union Delegations will be accountable to the Commission, some to the EEAS, and some to both. The innovations of the Lisbon Treaty would be undermined if the new service replicated or recreated the ineffective dualism that has characterised EU foreign policy in the past.