ADVOCACY BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES AT THE EU LEVEL

Foreign countries may spend money in advocacy at the EU level because they want to react or respond to situations in Brussels. For example when the mood in Brussels becomes highly critical of a certain country, the country may feel that Brussels needs to be better informed of the facts or it may feel that the EU needs to be led to view the issue from a different angle (a case of reaction). Of course, alternatively, it may feel that there is little it can do about it (a case of non-reaction).

While there might be a reason to act, a foreign representative may not have an idea of exactly what to do or how to respond. In other words, with or without their own strategy of action, decision-makers of foreign countries may be pressured to just ‘do something’. In such a case it can try to do it by itself through either its representative sent from home or through its diplomatic mission to the EU, or it can hire professional representation. There are cases that can be dealt with through direct interaction but hiring professional representation is often preferred for several reasons:

First there are only a limited number of cases, where foreign countries acting alone without professional assistance may be effective. Foreigners- whether based in their home countries or posted in Brussels face a series of obstacles in identifying and carrying out specific activities. Language and cultural barriers are the most important among them. In addition successful operation in Brussels requires a wide range of specific knowledge and broad contacts starting from understanding the EU complex  legal and institutional decision-making process and navigating through it to protocol and subtleties for dealing with European Commission officials, MEPs and their assistants and the media.

While many countries see value in having Brussels experts among their professionals, it remains difficult to fully train them in reality. These difficulties often lead the foreign countries to rely upon the hired representation for identifying and carrying out necessary actions.

It should be acknowledge that foreign countries have great difficulty in preparing themselves for future issues raised at the EU level. Even if a country largely anticipates an issue to arise in the EU, until it happens it is difficult to commit its resources. Even when the issue is sure to arise, and even if resources are available, foreign governments and corporations are slow to act until the issue surfaces because of other organizational priorities and the media.

Foreign countries spend more money on EU advocacy first and foremost when issues about them become highly and negatively publicized. Instead of being reactive foreign countries should be more pro-active and present their positions clearly to gain diplomatic and political advantage.

Foreign countries that have the necessary resources and/or well-informed of the EU put their emphasis on long-term commitment and continuous attention to cultivation of Brussels contacts through maintaining hired agents of representation. The rationale and the need for the sustained attention and commitment are clear. Public image of a country cannot be established or changed overnight. It takes a serious long term commitment. Mechanisms of issue management in Brussels entail long target lists of policy makers, professionals and related organisations. Contact management involves a large number of European Commission officials, MEPs, Assistant MEPs and committee staffs. Furthermore, on-going working relationship with journalists who cover the EU is also very important. If one aims at a truly effective issue management in Brussels, relationship with all the relevant people needs to be not just worked on, occasionally on an ad-hoc basis, but built for a long time and maintained consistently.

When consistent efforts are maintained, it will be much easier to prevent potential issues from becoming publicized. Issue management can never be as effective as prevention. The objective of post-hoc issue management is minimization. That accepts a certain amount of damage already done while the objective of preventive measure is seeking zero damage. The easiest way to seek the preventive strategy is through consistent engagement. Otherwise a foreign country has two choices that are inferior to staying engaged. One is to seek a preventive strategy through staying alert and getting engaged when a potential issue is detected, the other to give up a preventive approach and to seek a post-hoc option through focusing on issue management after an issue becomes publicized. There is no question that the latter is far less effective than any preventive strategy, while the former is risky and difficult. Clearly therefore, the countries that can afford the resources prefer the option of continuous engagement.

Despite these necessities not all foreign countries stay engaged in cultivating the basis for friendliness in Brussels. Not all foreign countries act to prevent potentially contentious issues from becoming contentious. Not all foreign countries are aware of these necessities and capable of committing themselves in the long run. Countries that are better informed of the EU political system are more likely to stay engaged. Since resources are limited, countries of relatively higher levels of awareness are more willing to assign priority to consistent foreign representation and commit their resources to it.

Note: Prior to moving to Belgium, AALEP's  Chair was engaged in lobbying activities on behalf of foreign nations in Washington DC to better inform the U.S. Congress, the White House, Executive Departments and the American public of events and issues that affect foreign relations. Activities included advocating and/or advancing trade and investment interests as well as other actions such as investment promotion tourism promotion etc.