European foreign policy growing pains

It is necessary more than ever to develop a consistent foreign policy in order for Europe to become an effective mouthpiece. If Europe wants to play at a global level, then it must be seen to be adopting positions decisively and unswervingly.

That is the conclusion that we have been able to draw from the COSAC (Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union) meeting, an advisory body that meets twice a year. This year’s meeting was held in Budapest.

In recent weeks, High Representative Catherine Ashton and her brainchild, the European External Action Service (EEAS or EAS), have been standing in the eye of the storm. After the European diplomatic service became operational on 1 January, it appeared that the coordination of this body on the international stage could hardly be referred to as unified and like-minded. The high expectations were not met. In the Treaty of Lisbon, it was agreed that a European diplomatic service would be established in order to guarantee joint participation and to provide a point of contact for international partners. It is also necessary to coordinate European development aid, trade policy and humanitarian actions.

Lack of cooperation

Getting 27 Member States to support a single European point of view is, admittedly, anything but simple. Certainly when a clear organisation chart outlining the mutual institutional relationships and the relationships with international institutions is lacking. Furthermore, the EEAS is recruiting from both the Commission and the Council. Critics of the EEAS correctly point out that a lack of cooperation between the EEAS and the national diplomatic services jeopardises effective operation. This is why a common, powerful position that crosses the Member States’ national borders has still not been achieved, precisely at a time when the European citizen is expecting more from the EU.

The Arab Spring recently exposed these growing pains. While the service was still searching for the right way to formulate its rejection of the Gaddafi regime, Sarkozy took the lead in advocating the use of force. The raid on Bin Laden in Abbottabad was subsequently a neck-and-neck race between Barosso and Van Rompuy to comment on the occasion. These examples show that Europe has a plethora of voices. Attributing this failure to Catherine Ashton is incorrect, all the more so because the feared clumsy operation was already a fact before the EEAS was ever set up. With Europe’s major powers pressuring for a profile, it is nearly impossible to control one’s own voice.

A bureaucratic diplomatic army

As far as this last matter is concerned, Barack Obama and the United States only need to take themselves into account. With 13,000 officials, the coordination of their diplomatic corps is streamlined. On the other hand, in addition to the estimated 4,000 EEAS officials, the 27 EU Member States employ no less than a diplomatic army in more than 2,000 embassies, 900 consulates and 125 European Commission representations. More than 100,000 officials means that there are lots of ants to tickle the foot of the European giant. Measures to create a synergy are desirable; the recent request by Ashton that the annual EEAS budget be increased from €30 million to €490 million, however, is not.
Mergers and a thorough cooperation with national diplomatic delegations in the field will provide a solution. Ashton cannot hide behind high personnel costs. A clear responsibility for this question is only called for in cases of extra humanitarian projects or for optimising development projects.

Working on a success formula

In order to give the EEAS a chance to succeed, interaction and an exchange of information between the national diplomatic corps is necessary. This message covers the suggestions made by the Benelux during the Council of Ministers on 23 May. Moreover, Europe is gaining in credibility due to the increased speed with which it responds in crisis situations. In order to achieve this objective, the Member States must get over their cold feet and submit their reports to the PSC (Political and Security Committee). Courage is needed here, especially when intelligence agencies must exchange sensitive information and it is necessary to go beyond national interests and to cross borders. This is the only way to bring about a consular cooperation whereby joint analyses create the basis for a streamlined communication process.

The European Union’s foreign policy needs a boost in order to show its necessity. The only way that the Political and Security Committee can function as it should, and mobilise and coordinate the EU’s resources, is with the support of the national diplomatic services. With its powerful diplomatic actions, customised humanitarian aid and the right plan of action in crisis situations, even the biggest Eurosceptic will have to recognise the merits of the EEAS.