Diplomacy on the move: are EU embassies the way ahead to forge a serious Union foreign policy?

Date: 06/03/03

Key Convention members believe that the EU needs aradical diplomatic shake-up to raise its internationalprofile. Deputy editor Dana Spinant weighs the options

THE debate about the creation of a coherent EU common foreign policy will miss the point if it focuses solely on who should be in charge of decisions, and neglects the crucial question of who would execute the policy.

Without genuine European diplomats and EU embassies, it will be difficult to forge a unified perception of international affairs and, consequently, an effective common foreign policy.

European diplomacy is crucial in sending coherent messages to Brussels and to member states' capitals about the world at large, instead of 15 different perceptions.

It is also an essential vehicle to present a European vision to the wider world so that non-EU states (third countries) perceive the Union as a whole, rather than a hotchpotch of individual countries.

A working group of the Convention on the future of the EU has proposed the creation of a European Diplomatic Academy and a network of EU embassies.

According to conclusions reached by the group on external action, chaired by Convention Vice-President Jean-Luc Dehaene, present European Commission delegations in third countries should become fully-fledged EU embassies reporting to the Union's foreign minister (called, in their proposal, "European external representative").

While such a development is seen by some as either utopian or undesirable - claiming the embassies would compete with those of member states - other Convention members believe the time is ripe for such a move.

Building a European diplomacy would not mean the disappearance of member states' diplomatic services, but would integrate them into a network alongside EU embassies. The latter would be staffed by officials from the Commission and Council of Ministers, along with diplomats sent by national foreign ministries, according to the working group proposal.

This pooling of external affairs officials is seen by Commission insiders as a prerequisite for genuine common external action. They feel it would end the current rivalry between national capitals and Brussels, and between Commission and Council services dealing with foreign affairs.

A senior Commission official warns that the battle by member state foreign ministries to preserve their powers is responsible, in part, for the EU's lack of a coherent external position.

He said: "If we are serious about having a common foreign and security policy [CFSP] - and we should be, as the opinion polls show citizens want one and are disappointed by the lack of it - we have to tackle the burden of the ambition of the foreign ministries of France, the UK and Germany. But they will be forced, in the long term, to cave in to pressure for a pan-European diplomacy.

"We will not abolish them, but integrate them into an EU network. Equally, we will not replace the member states' embassies in third countries - this is neither possible nor desirable - we will make them work together with the Union's own embassies," he said.

The official believes CFSP could work if it had one chief (foreign affairs minister) wearing a "double hat": he would be a Commission member (possibly a vice-president) but would be responsible to the Council of Ministers.

"It could work if there is a single head, if there is a joint external relations service with Commission and Council officials in the same building - and if they have the same aim," he said.

Chris Patten, the commissioner in charge of external relations, admits that common external representations would provide added value to the Union's action: "We would aim at enhanced coordination between the member states and with the EU, including systematic coordination on cooperation programmes; common political reporting and diplomatic initiatives and, gradually, common external representations.

"We could start with common missions where most member states are not represented, thus providing added value."

Another Commission official insists it would be necessary to build a network of EU embassies, based on present Commission delegations.

It has been proven, he claimed, that member state embassies are not very supportive of EU foreign affairs missions in third countries, while Commission delegations are.

"We have to look at special envoys' reports. They all indicate that member states' embassies are not backing them during their missions, while Commission delegations do. There are lessons to be learned here."

The Union's embassies could either take over all the tasks of present delegations, or, alternatively, specialised agencies could be created to deal with certain issues - such as managing development aid or cultural relations.

This is the model developed in Germany, where agency GTZ (Gesellschaft für Techniche Zusammenarbeit) manages German development projects, while the Goethe Institut organises cultural exchanges in third countries, in tandem with German embassies.

EU embassies, which would work closely with member state representatives, would focus on political and regulatory matters (scrutinising the implementation of agreements, for example), while member states' embassies would gradually turn to dealing mainly with, say, cultural exchanges and tourism.

One European diplomat points out that embassies are already losing some of their areas of competence due to the increasing importance of multilateral organisations - such as the UN, the World Trade Organization and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development as vehicles for inter-state relations.

"These organisations, whose powers will increase in the future, tend to reduce the power of embassies," the diplomat said.

Creating EU embassies would also make sense from a practical point of view - as the Union currently punches below its weight on the international scene, despite it employing more staff and spending more in external representation than the US.

According to a study by the European Parliament, the US has a network of around 300 missions all over the world, employing some 15,000 people.

The EU has around 1,500 missions abroad, in which 40,000 people are employed. The Commission alone has 128 delegations in 123 countries and five international organisations, with more than 800 officials and 2,000 people employed locally.

But despite this, the US is a world superpower while the Union is sometimes characterised as a "political pygmy". This is not only because EU countries are often unable to agree on a common position, but is also a result of there being no European diplomatic apparatus to help make this a reality.

In order for future EU embassies to function properly, a European diplomatic culture needs to be created, starting with the teaching of a common focus on Union - rather than national - culture and politics.

A paper put forward to the Convention by Spanish MEP Gerardo Galeote, and approved by a large majority of the European Parliament, calls for the establishment of a European Diplomatic Academy.

As a first step, "training of European diplomats should rely upon a network of European diplomatic academies, institutes, university centres and other bodies".

The paper states that "an effective external action, based on the coordination between the various European actors of foreign relations, depends on personal relations, common experiences and mutual knowledge.

"In this sense, training appears as an extremely effective tool in building up those personal relations at an early stage of a diplomatic career."

However, there is a risk that EU embassies abroad would be used to represent the interest of small member states, while the larger states would continue to use their own embassies as the privileged diplomatic channel.

"There is this possibility, of course, but I think that would only happen in the beginning," the Commission official said. "With the common training of young diplomats, and the prospect of a European diplomatic career, it is easy to envisage the best people choosing an EU career path, rather than joining their national foreign ministry.

"With money and the best diplomats, EU embassies would, in the long term, become instruments that could not be ignored, even by the large states.

"National diplomatic services are the last relic of nation state absolutism, which started to lose relevance with the creation of the League of the Nations and other multilateral organisations last century.

"They are not compatible with the level of integration in the EU today," the official added.

Key Convention members believe that the EU needs a radical diplomatic shake-up to raise its international profile. Article weighs the options.