Think tank warns against EU diplomatic turf wars[fr] 

In a new paper, the Swedish Institute of European Policy Studies (SIEPS) seeks to provide food for thought regarding the launch of the European External Action Service (EEAS), one of the innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. 

Common procedures can neither replace nor create common policies, according to the report's authors, Geoffrey Edwards and David Rijks. They describe at length what they call "a general mismatch" between the Council and the Commission in terms of diplomatic instruments on the ground. 

Coherence, the authors argue, is not just the absence of institutional friction but the ability to pull together diverse strands of policy - and those responsible for managing them - into a single efficient whole, capable of action and resistant to third parties' attempts to exploit internal divisions. 

Before offering their recommendations for the future European External Action Service (EEAS), they draw attention to existing frictions in the present state of play regarding EU external action: 

• Between the Pillars of the Union: a tension which the Lisbon Treaty seeks to ameliorate as far as foreign policy is concerned by placing two hats on the head of the High Representative; 
• Between the various Brussels institutions, for example the battles to come over how EEAS fits into policymaking and EU representation; 
• Between the competing policy circuits of bureaucracy; 
• Between centre and periphery, meaning between those working in delegations or offices in the field and those based at headquarters, and; 
• Between the EU and its member states, which both approve EEAS and yet the countries have no intention of giving up their national representations. 

The report also makes a list of recommendations. It asks for the EEAS's tasks to be defined quickly, in terms of the size and scope of the service, the institutional balance and the relationship with national foreign services. 

The authors call for the EEAS to be targeted at areas where the most value from joint action can be added. The idea of achieving an institutional design in stages is developed, based on agreement to review progress after a number of years. 

The authors also recommend the rapid establishment of an EU diplomatic training facility to ensure that EEAS staff from two different institutions and 27 different bureaucracies share common professional and administrative standards and are sufficiently knowledgeable of EU practice and procedure.