The EU’s diplomatic service, under the leadership of Kaja Kallas, is facing an unprecedented wave of internal unrest, raising fundamental questions about the fitness of the EU’s foreign policy apparatus for its mission.
Created under the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European External Action Service (EEAS) was designed as a compromise between Brussels and national capitals: powerful enough to coordinate diplomacy on behalf of all EU governments, independently of the European Commission, but weak enough not to not threaten national foreign ministries.
Caught between capitals and the Commission
More than 15 years later, officials from all EU institutions say that compromise is increasingly under strain.
“There should be less intrigue between and within the European Commission and the European External Action Service,†said Euractiv Urmas Paet, former Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs and current MEP. “It seems really ridiculous when burning questions are being asked all over the world. HAS”
The EEAS occupies a delicate place in the institutional architecture of the EU: formally independent, it is nevertheless politically linked to both the Commission and the Member States. This tension is materialized in the double role of Kallas, who simultaneously occupies the functions of high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice-president of the European Commission, or HRVP for short.
“It’s always been difficult, because it’s a bit like a platypus” (i.e. a hybrid, unclassifiable entity), said James Moran, a former EU ambassador and now a senior research associate at CEPS, a Brussels think tank.
Privately, officials within the EEAS complain that Berlaymont is increasingly encroaching on its territory, while Commission officials reject accusations of a deliberate power grab.
A European diplomat argued that the growing overlap between geopolitics and economic policy has inevitably shifted power to the Commission.
“If we want to regulate the tech giants… we must involve institutional actors outside the classic circles of foreign and security policy,” argued this diplomat.
He described the EEAS as “a bit of an unwelcome child” since its creation – caught between member states reluctant to cede control of foreign policy and a Commission reluctant to empower an institution too narrowly linked to national capitals.
Additionally, EU countries have been contrary by an initiative by Kallas to test the EU’s Mutual Assistance Clause 42.7 – fearing it could trigger a sharp backlash from Washington and further compromise NATO.
Who does this mandate report to? Who speaks on behalf of the EU?
“When she has a mandate, she keeps her commitments. The problem is that it is a very enigmatic institution with a rather weak mandate,” explained Juraj Majcin, a policy analyst at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank on European affairs.
Majcin cited recent security partnerships with countries such as India and Australia as examples of areas where the EEAS has operated effectively. However, he argued that the institution was still struggling to define its place within the EU system.
“As long as the treaty applies, the European External Action Service will exist,” Moran assured, adding that its effectiveness depended on the leadership and willingness of member states to act collectively.
At the start of the week, Kallas offered pour play a leading role in possible future negotiations with Russia, sparking a debate that highlights the EEAS’s wider political issues.
Officials and analysts have questioned whether the EU’s top diplomat has the political support or institutional mandate to take on such a role.
Majcin argued that Kallas had “put the cart before the horse” by running publicly before gaining broad support from national governments, which are currently discussing other candidates, most likely a former or current head of state or government, to serve as envoy in the event of talks with Putin.
Moran suggested that a compromise could ultimately emerge, in which the EEAS would play a coordinating role while member states and national leaders would retain political control over the most sensitive negotiations.
A senior Commission official noted that the discussion itself is a clear indicator of the political limits of any role the HRVP might play.
“The unsaid, is: not Kallas Â,” the source said.
(wow)
