EU DELEGATIONS VS NATIONAL EMBASSIES OF EU MEMBER STATES

Article 27 TEU emphasizes that the EEAS will work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and not replace them.

Activities of EU Delegations with National Embassies

Regular coordination meetings at all levels

The most visible regular activity of the Delegations vis-à-vis Embassies of the Member States are coordination meetings at various levels. Meetings take place on a regular basis at different levels: Heads of Mission, their deputies, and heads of sections or counsellors. Ideally, they serve a dual purpose of being useful to Member States and advancing EU foreign policy coherence. In Washington for example, Member States’ diplomats generally appreciate the coordination meetings.  The meetings are most useful if they have a well-prepared agenda and a clear purpose, and if meetings of different levels and formats are connected to each other and to the policy process. Overall, it is the regular meetings of the Deputy Heads of Mission that are considered to be the linchpin of coordination, as they are responsible for overseeing the work of all other levels. The level of ambition is rather low when it comes to the goal of promoting foreign policy coherence and unity on the ground. This relates to the rather general definition of coordination and reflects the intergovernmental nature of common foreign policy. The meetings are for the most part not aimed at reaching a common position, and Member States do not see this as their purpose. Many diplomats also note that EU policy is decided in Brussels (by representatives of the Member States), not in the field. This should, however, not constitute a reason not to identify shared positions on the ground and feed them to the capitals and the Brussels machinery.

Member States’ diplomats in Washington characterize the coordination meetings as valuable for exchanging views, networking, receiving information about the activities of the Delegation and other Member States, and improving their analysis of what is going on in the partner country, its relations with the EU, and its bilateral relations with other Member States. The meetings frequently host high-level US guest speakers, including officials, politicians, experts and activists. In Washington, most Member States value the meetings as an opportunity to gain access to higher levels of the State Department and White House officials than they would be able to reach on their own. Unsurprisingly, it is the smaller and mid-sized Member States in particular that experience the added value and efficiency of coordination and information-sharing. They appreciate the opportunities provided by the Delegations to receive information from local stakeholders, as the need to follow a broad range of topics often goes beyond what they would be able to manage with their limited staff. They assess that the Delegations largely treat Member States equally, which has been very important for generating trust.

Political reporting

The Delegations are generally seen as capable of high-quality analysis and reporting, not least because of the very competent national diplomats that have been gradually recruited to the Delegations.  Generally, it is up to the Heads of Delegation and their staff to determine how and to what extent they share reports and other collected information, both with Member States on the ground and with the headquarters in Brussels. More recently, the Delegations have been instructed to share as much as they deem possible with Member States on the ground. It is then up to the National Embassies to integrate the information they receive from the EU Delegation into their reporting back to the national capital. Member States’ perceptions of reporting by the Delegations are ambivalent: on the one hand, they appreciate this service and praise its efficiency. On the other hand, they tend to think that the Delegations do not share enough, and they demand more transparency with regard to the reports that the Delegations are sending to Brussels. Shared reporting is important not only because it provides the smaller Member States in particular with additional information and analysis, but it can also help to promote shared positions, generate trust and encourage Member States to share their information. It is the task of the Delegations to lead the way in fostering a culture of sharing. At the same time, Member States should acknowledge that the Delegations need to be able to report to Brussels without sharing everything with them . Both the Delegations and Member States prefer oral and informal exchanges to sharing reports, which seems to fit well into the everyday pattern of diplomatic practice. It is a challenge for Member States that the sharing of information is still rather one dimensional, with the Delegation doing most of the sharing. There’s still somewhat a limited readiness of Member States to share among each other and with the Delegations. Member States often cite practical considerations (principally the language limitations), but this cannot hide the more fundamental problem of a lack of political will, trust and commitment to promoting a common foreign policy. Inadequate security is also an issue when it comes to sharing reports.  The need to further develop the secure ‘sharing of information, including of classified and sensitive material’ has been acknowledged in the EEAS review

National diplomats appreciate the added value provided by the Delegations as hubs for providing services and coordinating the exchange of information between Member States.

For Member States’ diplomats, bilateral contacts with the partner country are an unarguable priority in Washington, and it is out of the question that their diplomatic work in those capitals would ever be replaced by a joint European representation. Being a Member State of the EU consequently has secondary relevance. The large Member States, particularly permanent UN Security Council members (but also Germany and Italy), are determined to maintain their national prestige and influence. For the smaller ones, the EU is more important as an umbrella and amplifier, but they are no less preoccupied with national visibility and reputation. The Delegations are gradually being recognized as comprehensive EU representations in political affairs as well. The EU Delegations have developed better access to local actors in Washington than the Embassies of most Member States. The Heads of Delegation are visible, high-profile figures.

Apart from being actors that represent the Union as a whole, the Delegations are an arena for local partners to reach all Member States: representatives of partner countries use coordination meetings as an economical way to communicate with the 28 at one go. In Washington it is difficult to reach a high-ranking official for most Member States.

Publicly, the US position is to support coordination among EU members, as it adds efficiency when dealing with a coordinated group rather than with 28 individual countries. Yet, practice shows that it depends on the topic at hand, and that the US in a very strategic manner also knows when to approach Member States bilaterally, namely when there would be an unfavourable EU opposition. Local actors in Washington often criticize the ‘schizophrenic’ behaviour of the Delegation, as it ‘wants do things but at the same time does not want to be perceived as doing things’. In other words, the Delegation tries be involved and visible towards the host country, but at the same time does not want to be perceived (by Member States) as taking a political stance. This often leads to taking a superficial and empty stance in the public discourse, which does not help to position the EU as a political actor.

Diplomatic practices are changing, with more emphasis being put on providing in-depth analysis through reporting to the capital, while at the same time coordinating various national actors on the ground and promoting sectoral interests, such as trade and investment promotion. Member States generally appreciate the EU Delegation taking the lead in addressing highly technical issues (such as financial affairs; food safety and consumer protection; or transport issues).

If and when Member States opt to address a trade dispute through the EU, it is primarily a matter for Brussels, but the Delegation does its share of ‘trouble-shooting’. Another observable trend relates to increased burden-sharing among the Delegation and Member States in the field of public diplomacy. This field is perceived as increasingly important, but the resources available to the Member States are shrinking. EU Delegations’ budgets are limited in this regard,  but the Delegations use the principle of synergy and efficient cooperation to support Member States. Member States are keen to fly the national flag at cultural events, business forums, or expert gatherings abroad. Due to cost-saving considerations, cooperation with the EU Delegation is increasing – national flags can be flown next to the EU flag. Linking together what used to be separate national programmes can bring advantages even to the largest Member States. In Washington, the EU Delegation provides mailing lists, organisational support and a venue for organising events, and tries to involve local actors. It is important for the Delegations to continue working to enhance the common visibility and joint public face of the EU in the realm of public diplomacy.

Providing the ‘eyes and ears’ for shaping EU policy

A traditional role for Embassies is to be the ‘outpost’ for their capital and to provide analysis and information, so that policies adopted in the capital are well-informed and well-considered. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Delegations have been tasked with informing the EEAS, Commission services, and other EU actors such as MEPs. Member States’ representations can still be involved in drafting joint reports, but it is now the EU Delegations that take the lead.

The Delegation is in the best position to assess the motives, aims and tactics of the partner country. Analysis and policy proposals by the Delegation, drawing on exchanges both with local partners and Member States’ representatives in the field, should feed back more strongly into the EU policy-making process. In top locations Delegations can benefit from the network of very experienced Member States’ Ambassadors and use their collective expertise to provide input into EU policy-making. A stronger link between EU Delegations and Brussels policy-making has much potential to add value to European diplomatic efforts.