Reflections on the EEAS review

The European External Action Service matters; the foreign policy instrument of the Union is active and well alive. Despite severe criticism of the head of the EEAS, HR Catherine Ashton, she has become a key international player. For instance, she is the sole international leader to have visited Mohammed Morsi of Egypt, held prisoner by the Egyptian army. Not much has transpired from this meeting and little is known about their discussion. However, neither the Americans, nor the French and Brits, have been able to talk to him (at least by what has transpired in the press and official diplomatic channels). It was certainly a huge score for the international aura of Ashton and the EEAS.

A year after the implementation of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, the European External Action Service was finally designed and operationalized. This new institution, in charge of the foreign policy of the Union, is led by HR Catherine Ashton, whose task was to design it. After a rocky couple of years, the official review of the EEAS was finally published in July. The review “deliberately concentrates on policy issues and possible improvements without addressing what these would require in terms of internal organisational changes, modifications in legal texts or other wider issues to be considered as part of the institutional transition in 2014.”

Video: Speech by Catherine Ashton on the 2013 EEAS review before the European Parliament

Prior reviewing the document, several points must be underlined in order to understand the reasons behind some of the shortcomings of the EEAS and difficulties in developing an international voice.

First, the bureaucratic culture of the EEAS is complex and diverse. The EEAS is composed of three types of staffs: officials from the General Secretariat of the Council (political knowledge), the Commission (technical knowledge) and from diplomatic services of the Member States (national perspective). Each group of officials comes with a specific interest and agenda, making the decision-making a little more complex.

Second, the institutional nature of the EEAS is once again hybrid. The EEAS is a unique body within the Union considering its nature and decision-making process being neither supranational nor intergovernmental. The EEAS deals with a large number actors, counting the Member States in the Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, in order to foster a European foreign policy. These bilateral and multilateral relationships are in some instance difficult as each institution holds its own interests and priorities. Furthermore, Ashton has expressed at occasions the limited independence of the EEAS in decision-making. The EEAS is in fact navigating between two waters/methods: the community – supranational – and the intergovernmental decision-making methods. The
EEAS has for missions to not only support the EU Member States, but as well maintain complex relations with the Commission and the Parliament.

Third, the EEAS was created at the time of one of the worst financial crisis touching Europe since 1929. The Member States’ commitments, interests and willingnesses to invest into this experiment has undeniably decreased. The priority within the Union since 2008 has been about domestic politics and fiscal policies. The making of a Banking Union and/or Fiscal Union has certainly drawn more attention than the construction of the EEAS. Unfortunately, the rise of inward looking in Europe takes place at a time of great regional and global transformations. Despite a volatile neighborhood – Middle East and North Africa – Foreign policy has been either cut or brought back to national capitals.

In the foreword of the EEAS review, HR Ashton declared

This review sets out some of the lessons we have learned. We have sought to make the best use of scarce financial resources – and also to meet expectations that the EU should support progress towards democracy and prosperity in countries as varied as Libya and Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Mali and Myanmar/Burma.

Progressively, the EEAS, under HR Ashton, has identified a set of priorities and policies:

–       relationship with the neighborhoods

–       Comprehensive Approach, allowing the EU to deal with any types of foreign policy issues

–       Dealing with emerging global issues, wherein the EU can play a role.

These priorities are certainly crucial in order to identify the interests of the Union as well as the instruments in order to tackle emerging challenges.

Overall, most of the review is a reiteration of what the EEAS does, its relationship with other institutions, and its structure. The proposals for change is composed of 26 short-term and nine medium-term recommendations tackling three core themes: organization, staffing and functioning. They are very technical,  bureaucratic, and institutional. For instance, in the short-term recommendation, the point 6, seeking to “reinforce the EEAS capacity for external aspects of key EU policies (energy security, environment, migration, fight against terrorism, external economic issues)” is important as it would increase EU power and implication in vital global issues. The relations between the EEAS and the Commission were certainly tackle, considering some difficulties to operate and cooperate. The existing turf war between the two bodies has considerably affected the global voice of the Union in foreign policy matters.

The recommendations made in the review are about slimming down the service in order to make it less expensive. Unfortunately, strategic and core foreign policy questions were not discussed. This document is a very technocratic piece of literature. It has more to do with facilitating cooperation and coordination in this European institutional maze,  than reflecting on how the EEAS can contribute to global security and advancing European interests through its already active instrument, like the CSDP and other policies. “Overall reducing the gap between policy and implementation:” argued Greta Galeazzi, “this is what the EEAS review should be about delivering – but its success in this area is not in the gift of the Service alone.” This review illustrates clearly the complexity of foreign policy making in the EU and the wide range of actors involved in the process. This review is a step in trying to make the EEAS more efficient as a unit and among all European agents.