Abstract
Under the leadership of Catherine Ashton, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the process of establishing the European External Action Service (EEAS) has begun. In order for this initiative to be successful, a training framework founded on fundamental European values must be created for qualified individuals entering the service. Important to this pursuit is the creation of a European School of Diplomacy. The EEAS is a positive step towards a common European voice and acknowledging the need to utilise multilateral bodies to find solutions for the increasingly complex and interconnected global stage.
Keywords
Last July, when the decision to establish the European External Action Service (EEAS) was finally adopted, we took another fundamental and historic step on the road to European integration. As the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, stressed on 7 July in her speech to the European Parliament, the creation of the EEAS marks a change in how we operate in a fast-changing geopolitical landscape. I am convinced that Europe needs to speak with one voice if we want that voice to be heard. And we have now equipped ourselves with the right institutional tool to defend Europe's interests and project Europe's values in a more cohesive manner.
Nonetheless, we cannot overlook the fact that some commentators greeted the EEAS with reserve. Some of their remarks reminded me of the words once attributed to Albert Einstein: ‘cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondarily on institutions’. In other words, these critics are wondering how EEAS officials can pursue common European interests while Member States are implementing competing or diverging foreign policies (as epitomised by the latest EU divisions on the recognition of Kosovo). Such critics surround this new institution—and its ability to dispel the mistrust and suspicion that continue to exist among Member States’ national diplomatic services—with scepticism.
We cannot dismiss these doubts when we respond in support of the decision to establish the EEAS. We cannot deny that many foreign policy issues lie at the source of such divergent points of view among Member States, and that the risk exists that the EU will continue to act in a disunited manner. We also need to take into account the reservations voiced about the heterogeneous origins (concerning both status and nationality) of the EEAS staff. In short, we are well aware of the risk of reproducing and transferring into the new body the same mechanisms and lack of unity that characterise national foreign policies. If we did so, we would end up subjecting the service to a sort of mise en abyme: the art technique in which an image contains a smaller copy of itself, the sequence appearing to recur infinitely.
Yet we must recognise that the service is not, in itself, an added value. It would be wrong to imagine that European foreign policy will progress and become unified solely as a result of the creation of a common foreign affairs service. If we lack political will, if we lack a strong determination to proceed towards a reliable, visible and convincing foreign policy, no service will be enough. In other words, we run the risk of merely creating shared administrations that will not live up to our expectations and ambitions. Over 50 years ago, Alcide De Gasperi stressed that without a higher political will in which the wills of nations come together, are fully expressed and come alive in a higher framework, the European venture would seem cold and lifeless.
If we want to avoid these risks, I believe that we must not only select the right people to start working on the necessary tasks, but we must also train them well according to fundamental European values. Indeed, training is the first essential step towards the efficient functioning of a unified body of European diplomats— especially since EU officials (like national ones) are called upon to acquire new knowledge through a methodology that is becoming less and less academic and more and more focused on day-to-day operational challenges. That is why EEAS officers need to be trained to develop a common technique that includes all the necessary diplomatic and negotiating skills. Yet managing technique is not enough, because the EEAS can pursue common goals only if it acts in accordance with shared European values. Therefore attention should be focused on training programmes aimed at promoting common European principles.
In this article I will develop the points mentioned above by examining in detail the innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the structure of the European External Action Service. The aim is to suggest a possible training framework: teaching staff how to understand the changing world from a collective perspective; learning how the new system works; and urging diplomats to learn about the culture and working methods of their colleagues.
The Lisbon Treaty's innovations for external affairs: a response to the new international situation
The goal is to develop a common diplomatic culture for a better understanding of a rapidly changing world. The Lisbon Treaty is the concrete result of European countries’ willingness to keep working to strengthen the EU. It is the way we have chosen to consolidate institutions, expand the EU's powers and cooperate more closely in a renewed framework. It took time to get it passed. It went through numerous reviews, was halted by national referenda and then was relaunched in modified form in order to obtain general consensus. Now it will lead us into the future, a landmark for the twenty-first-century EU and the latest and most comprehensive instrument to foster the EU project and encourage in our citizens a sense of ownership of their European ‘home’.
External affairs must necessarily play a central part in this new scheme. The world is evolving quickly, new states and powers are emerging as important actors, multilateralism is a reality and, in the future, managing responsibilities will likely feature a different, more balanced sharing of burdens.
The challenges presented by the present era of global interdependence are overwhelming on every front: security is threatened by forces unknown even in the recent past; we are witnessing an upsurge in conflicts that are political in nature but have underlying factors such as failing governance and poverty; we must handle an amazing amount of information provided through a variety of channels and technological platforms that are increasingly difficult to relate to states or groups; the spread of innovative and risky financial packages can undermine our economies, as we have recently seen; and trade, like industrial production, is becoming increasingly global.
All these issues have become ever more complex and less predictable, and less manageable by single Member States. The potential for an actor to control today's dynamics is rapidly decreasing. More collaborative efforts are needed, more EU responses and fewer single-state initiatives. Given this scenario, we felt a general sense of urgency regarding the need for a more authentic European vision and common tools to face the political, economic and social developments that have changed the world in the last two decades. That is why the Treaty outlines a new architecture for the EU's external action.
We now have a permanent President of the European Council who will also play a role in external affairs. Herman Van Rompuy has already flagged economic strategy and external affairs as priorities. Given the financial crises Europe has faced in the last two years, he has concentrated his action thus far on the economy, but we already know that in the future he intends to play an active role in external affairs.
But the greatest innovation so far has been establishing the position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the very real equivalent of a foreign minister with responsibility for managing our external policy. We are confident that Lady Ashton will allow the EU to play a decisive role on the international stage. Speaking on our behalf, the High Representative will make us act as one, with one voice and one response.
The European External Action Service was designed to give the High Representative an efficient instrument to support her work on an ongoing, daily basis. The service will be a pivotal instrument in representing and defending European interests and shared priorities. Through an ambitious use of the EEAS, the EU and its Member States will increase their influence and role in political and trade negotiations and enjoy greater control over their impact on EU interests. At the same time, the EU will be able to deal in a more timely, careful and efficient manner with key issues such as energy security, global and regional crisis management, competition for access to vital resources, weapons proliferation, organised crime and illegal immigration; issues that could affect our stability and security.
But how will we be able to develop a common understanding of events on the international stage and formulate joint responses, given the varied origin and experience of the people destined to be part of the EEAS? The change in international relationships clearly requires an up-to-date diplomatic approach. At the national level we are all aware of the importance of modern diplomatic training, which enables officers to develop a multidisciplinary approach, communicate fluently with different professional cultures and interact easily with other people and with non-traditional counterparts.
Nevertheless, the 27 EU countries have different patterns of diplomatic training, focusing on different priorities (languages, basic negotiating techniques, cultural, historical or economic knowledge, professional experience and so on) and necessarily influenced by their own national world view. To work together for the benefit of EU citizens we need to design a sort of common lens with which to view the world. The new generation of European diplomats will need to be given the necessary skills to identify and defend European interests as such, while acknowledging the existence of possible underlying—and conflicting—national views.
The structure of the EEAS
Training is the key to foster the functioning of a complex institutional mechanism. I wish to underline certain central aspects of the EEAS's structure that reflect the priorities set out by the Italian government throughout the long negotiations:
There will be just one chain of command so as to avoid unnecessary and costly duplication. According to this principle EU delegations abroad will normally act under the instructions of the High Representative. The EU delegations will cooperate closely with Member States’ Diplomatic Services and, on request, provide support and consular protection for the citizens of the EU, according to the principle of cost neutrality.
The EEAS will be created by merging three different services previously dealing with international politics: national diplomatic services, the General Secretariat of the Council and the European Commission. The EEAS will include personnel from the three services—selected according to principles of geographical balance and merit—and will treat everyone equally. Italy insisted strongly on this point, in the belief that only equality among officers with different backgrounds will develop the necessary sense of joint ownership. By 1 July 2013, diplomats seconded by the national diplomatic services should account for at least one-third of EEAS personnel.
The EEAS will cooperate with the national diplomatic services, the Secretariat General and the Commission in order to ensure consistency among the various external affairs areas and other EU policies. As regards EU external affairs issues (ESDP excepted), the EEAS is expected to participate in the preparatory work and procedures envisaged by the Commission. We could say that the EEAS is just one more piece of the puzzle—but it is a highly important part, one that is vital to making it work more efficiently. It is certainly a complex construction whose definitive structure will be visible only in the medium term. For the moment, it should be noted that no detail was overlooked in ensuring the overall coherence of the general institutional framework and the control and evaluation of the financial management of the service.
The EEAS has budgetary autonomy. We strenuously defended this principle because of its important implications for the new service's margins of action. This is not the place to examine complex administrative procedures. Suffice to note that the system once again guarantees the involvement and full cooperation of competent institutions. Based in Brussels, the structure will interact with EU delegations worldwide, acting as EU embassies in third countries and to international organisations. The High Representative will direct this network, thus ensuring that one person speaks for the EU everywhere the EU is present. Now we can offer our international partners an interlocutor that is credible and stable, well informed and ready to act.
This all sounds encouraging. It implies a perfect understanding of the internal mechanisms and procedures of the EU institutions and of the new service, but also a thorough knowledge of the status of open dossiers on the ground. Is that the situation we currently find among national and EU diplomats? Hardly. On specific issues, national diplomats can often boast useful expertise that would benefit the EEAS, even though they may lack an in-depth knowledge of the internal workings of the EU. And EU officers, clearly more familiar with the internal procedures of the EU, may lack specific regional or thematic competences. Above all, none of them knows how the new system will work, from either the administrative or the political point of view.
Unravelling the complex mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and ensuring that it is ‘readable’ to everybody concerned are important missions for training bodies. The officers who will serve the EEAS, at various levels, will be chosen from the best in their categories: whether from the Commission, the Council Secretariat or from Member States’ diplomatic corps, they will know their work and their duties. Especially at the outset, the service needs to take full advantage of people prepared to produce results. And the EEAS will reach its genuine objectives only when all the actors share the same EU vision of the goals to be achieved.
First the instrument, then the policy: will it work?
We will need to learn how to build a common foreign policy together. One could ask why, during the Lisbon Treaty negotiations, we insisted so much on a new structure to deal with our external affairs when we have no real common foreign policy. This is a good point. At times, European countries do indeed have different visions and priorities. This has always been the case. It is no secret, as proven by some of the most sensitive international dossiers, such as Turkey's accession or Kosovo's independence. Still, I can think of many reasons why creating the tool before we have a common strategy might be a sensible, albeit risky, approach:
First of all, the scope of diplomacy is not limited to executing a political mandate. Instead, diplomatic activity may contribute efficiently to foreign policy formulation. The EEAS represents a unique opportunity for the EU to fine-tune its policy using the information it receives from delegations. The instructions issued to the network as a result will enable the EU to speak with one voice.
Second, there are many points on which European countries can agree. By focusing on the least controversial elements of international issues we can enable the EU to become a more relevant global actor. We know for sure that we need common strategies on areas like the Middle East and Iran, an up-to-date relationship with the US and broader partnerships with emerging countries. We share an extraordinary set of rights, principles and values that we wish to promote and spread: the protection of fundamental human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We all face historic challenges that need an urgent, focused response. I refer to immigration flows, climate change, energy supplies and new threats to our security.
Third, the appearance on the international stage of ever more powerful actors with different cultures, traditions, values and interests has increased the visibility of the European identity and the need for it to be counted and confirmed, especially in multilateral fora. The single voice of the High Representative makes this strategy more viable. That is why we strongly support the resolution that should be adopted at the next UN General Assembly to enable Lady Ashton to speak for us all. The time is not ripe for an EU seat at the Security Council, but this is another goal that Italy does not intend to give up on.
Fourth, we need to find a more effective way to explain the EU project to third countries, especially developing countries that have little familiarity with supranational entities like the EU and tend to think in traditional terms of bilateral relationships.
Finally, states are no longer the only actors in international relationships, nor is their diplomacy distinctive. Our world is characterised by a number of supra-state (and non-state) actors which enrich international life and which we need adequate instruments to deal with. That is why the EEAS does not replace national diplomatic services but will hopefully allow the EU to follow a more cohesive and effective external affairs policy as a global actor.
If we agree that the new service should foster the elaboration of a common policy, we must also ponder how we can achieve that goal in practice. EEAS diplomats will have to learn how to make the most of their previous experience and day-to-day work. It is not their role to privilege one national position over the others. They must focus on a common ground and start building consensus, avoiding zero-sum games between Member States and delivering concrete proposals to establish possible common positions. There can be no EU foreign policy without a strong political drive to that end. But political will can result from strong, well-defended arguments in favour of a unified position.
Variety is the treasure of Europe
Variety does not preclude us getting to know each other better. The EU has an invaluable resource in the different ways its peoples and nations are, think and act. As the founders of the European idea have always stressed, here lies the strength of the Union. The EU is able to be understood everywhere because of the different experiences its people have accumulated over the centuries and the multiple cultural outlooks they have developed.
This unique heritage clearly gives the EU important leverage, but it needs to be reinforced: a cohesive EU foreign policy needs to create its own common idiom and procedures that should be the result of the best practices of each single Member State. Training, in this sense, means teaching designed to bridge the cultural gaps between us and foster the capacity to overcome persistent stereotypes and concentrate on making a positive contribution to the ‘common home’.
We already know the importance of mutual understanding in building European citizenship. The Erasmus project, allowing students to spend time pursuing their studies in another EU country, is viewed as one of the most successful programmes ever financed by the EU. It has been followed by similar effective and much-appreciated initiatives. Our people find it easy to abandon prejudice and stereotypes if they are given the opportunity to experience different environments directly.
Diplomats are more accustomed to dealing with ‘others’ and operating in different cultural contexts. Still, they may know very little of the way their foreign colleagues analyse events, negotiate agreements or simply manage their professional challenges. It is only by exchanging information on these issues that we will have the best of our national diplomacies condensed into one.
Training as the key to a coherent and effective EEAS: an Italian proposal
In recent months, as we discussed how to build the European External Action Service, training emerged as an absolute priority. Italy laid special emphasis on this issue: in our system, good training is of paramount importance to becoming a diplomat and acquiring the European and global vision we deem necessary to accomplish the mission of promoting and defending Italy's many and broad interests. A demanding public examination on a wide spectrum of subjects, including two foreign languages, is the gateway to a diplomatic career, with officers taking specific courses each time they return to Rome. Training programmes for Italian diplomats include communication skills, negotiation techniques, public diplomacy, an interactive approach to online communication for the general public, economic and financial global issues, business management, performance management, productivity assessment and performance results and commitment to organisational values.
With an extensive network of embassies and consulates and fewer than 1,000 officers, diplomats must be given the skills to work in very different geographic and cultural contexts and in every branch of diplomatic activity (political, economic, cultural, consular and administrative).
Who will take care of the fundamental task of training? In its resolution of 22 October 2009 the European Parliament suggested the creation of a European School of Diplomacy based on common study programmes and focusing on subjects like external affairs, history and the functioning of the EU. I believe that a new entity to perform this important task may not be necessary. The EU already has renowned schools for European law and European affairs. We believe that these institutions can help us create a common EU foreign policy language and strengthen the roots of the fledgling EEAS.
The Florence-based European University Institute (EUI) can rightly be numbered among them. The EUI is an academic institution whose motto is excellence and where research and teaching are conducted in a truly multinational and European environment, with no one predominant national academic or bureaucratic tradition. This is a hugely important feature in strengthening the European spirit and the sense of the EEAS as a common endeavour. Few European institutions are capable of managing such a project, at such a high level. National institutions are poorly placed to truly interpret the European spirit that must be the hallmark of the future service. And few academic institutions have the number and exceptional quality of the EUI's professors. For these reasons, not to mention its marvellous location, the EUI would be the ideal venue to provide European diplomats with the necessary know-how in a setting conducive to cooperation. The EEAS and the EU institutions would surely benefit from this.
In this article I have sketched out some of the basic objectives of good training. Starting from the officers’ own knowledge and expertise, we will have to expand their capacities, update their working methods and give them more sophisticated intellectual and technical resources to understand the EU's mechanisms, to better comprehend the different EU cultures and visions and to deal with the rest of the world—in the name of all 27 Member States.
Let me add two more reasons why this is not only necessary but advantageous: reduced costs, and useful feedback for Member States on the EU and the common approach to external action.
Overall, training for the EEAS must be considered an invaluable investment in the future of the EU. The same holds true for Member States, which will benefit from their officers’ preparation once they are back in their own capitals. In a few years’ time, EEAS training will meet the national need to update those courses which individual Member States currently offer their own personnel. Implementing these on a larger scale will reduce the total costs we incur today for diplomatic training.
It is not unrealistic to say that the EEAS will contribute to the post-Lisbon EU not only by supporting the High Representative's duties but also by creating a new generation of diplomats—a generation that is able to present the EU's natural diversity, the fruit of the successful ‘melting pot’ of its Member States.
These EU diplomats, who will return to their national foreign offices when their EEAS mandate expires, will be advocates of ‘communitarising’ training initiatives at home, helping their own administrations to better understand how the EU now works on the international stage. They will help harmonise national structures and working methods under an ‘EU way’. Common training will prove its effectiveness in binding personnel and structures, creating a permanent network among persons and national and EU administrative centres.
During my previous tenure in Brussels I often heard a sentence attributed to one of the founders of the EU, Jean Monnet. Apparently he used to say that, given the chance to start again with European integration, he would begin with culture. Allow me, then, to paraphrase Monnet by saying that if we want to build a stronger foreign policy, to get the service up and running quickly, we have to start by training our officers in line with our common European values. This is the path that will truly help us to contain our divergences and strengthen our shared foreign policy positions.
Footnotes