External action service: David O’Sullivan

The external action service was formed at a difficult time for Europe, but has brought greater coherence and efficiency to the EU’s international presence, writes David O’Sullivan.

January 1 2012 marked one full year of the European external action service (EAS). Last December, the high representative Catherine Ashton presented her report evaluating the first year of the EAS. There have been a number of other reports from outside bodies which have made welcome and constructive assessments on our first year.

What has guided the EAS has been the overall aim to build up a service to pursue Europe’s interests in the world, to make EU foreign policy more coherent, and to provide continuity in external representation, going beyond the six-monthly rotation of the EU presidency. The basic structure of the EAS was set up in 2011 in terms of the merger of different constituent parts of the European commission, council secretariat and member state diplomats - and in terms of taking up presidency functions. The priority was business continuity; at headquarters with the creation of a new integrated structure for the new service, and around the world with the roughly 140 delegations, as well as the support to the ongoing 13 crisis management missions and operations.

Admittedly there were some technical glitches as we merged separate systems, but these were ironed out in good time. The EAS is now autonomous as required by the parameters of the service. We have a relatively lean administrative team, so in a way the real news is how smoothly the merger has taken place. Our upcoming move to a new building this year will be hugely positive in fostering an espirit de corps.

On balance, 2011 was a challenging year in which to launch the EAS. It was marked by the eruption of the Arab spring and the eurozone crisis. Despite these obvious challenges, the EAS persevered in its basic aims to increase the coherence of the EU’s foreign policy, to better serve the EU institutions in the area of external relations and to provide continuity in EU relations with non-EU countries.

To assess the success of the EAS after one year, we should look at the extent to which the new organisation is adding value in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and external relations. There is now greater coherence in the EU’s external action, increased partnership within the EU institutions and member states, and stronger continuity in the message of Europe around the world. The EAS ensures coherence as Catherine Ashton has taken over the chairmanship of the foreign affairs council from the rotating presidency, she represents the EU externally, and is also a vice-president of the commission.

In areas such as human rights, conflict prevention, security and stability, nuclear disarmament, and the EU’s military and civilian missions, the EAS plays a strong coordinating, and often leading, role within the institutions. I believe there are encouraging signs that we can be a facilitating vehicle for the EU institutions and member states by weaving together our knowledge of foreign policy with the different instruments at our disposal.

In 2012, our organisational priorities will be to reinforce the EAS’ legitimacy, improve communication, enhance the delegations, and further provide policy leadership. Although the EAS suffers from a continuing structural deficit of staff and other means, it can be seen as evidence of value for money and smart use of resources.

The real test is the willingness of member states to agree to a more integrated European approach to CFSP. The Lisbon treaty changed CFSP’s institutional structures, the hardware so to speak, but the software, namely the decision-Making process, has remained largely intergovernmental and based on unanimity, at least in CFSP.

The challenge for the EAS will be, over the years, to persuade member states that it is much better to act collectively and effectively at European level than at national level. I believe that the EAS on its own cannot produce this outcome. However, the existence of a professional and efficient diplomatic service at European level which has the confidence both of the European institutions and of the member states can be the catalyst for such a “Europeanisation” of foreign and security policy, joined up with the policies of trade, aid and the external aspects of internal policies, such as research, energy, transport, climate change and environment. Getting Europe to speak with one voice across the full spectrum of our policies will increase our influence and our leverage.

David O’Sullivan is chief operating officer for the external action service