EU-oriented bilateralism: evaluating the role of member state embassies in the European Union

Abstract

The European Union (EU) constitutes an evolving diplomatic milieu characterized by high levels of interconnectedness among the politico-administrative apparatuses of member states. The article assesses whether the continued presence of member state bilateral embassies in the EU is residual and largely emptied of function, or whether they are adapting their role to new requirements in the EU policy environment. An analytical framework is developed conceptualizing diplomatic representation around three variables—function, access and presence—and two scenarios of change dynamics in the structures of bilateral diplomacy in the EU are proposed. These are then utilized to evaluate empirical evidence gathered in embassies of six member states in London and Vienna. The findings reveal a process of gradual ‘re-gearing’ of embassy functions towards EU matters, shifting patterns of communication and access, and ‘domestication’ of diplomatic presence in terms of personnel and agenda. Overall, this amounts to a shift towards EU-oriented bilateralism.

Notes

² ‘Bilateralism’ has, of course, broader definitions that can be applied within the context of EU diplomatic interactions, not least the conduct of relations between the EU as an entity and other actors and groupings. The focus of this article, however, relates to the development of the traditional mode of intergovernmental bilateralism as it is evolving in the EU arena.

³ The term ‘national diplomatic system’ is employed here to denote the machinery through which national governments conduct their international policy. It suggests that this machinery is not necessarily synonymous with the MFA but increasingly includes a range of bureaucratic actors, both in sectoral ministries and in central agencies. Moreover, it recognizes that the MFA and its diplomatic network exist in an increasingly complex relationship in terms of the functions each performs in the overall processes of managing and implementing international policy.

¹ An earlier version of this article was presented at an internal seminar at the Institute for European Integration Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna on 30 June 2008. We would like to thank the seminar participants as well as David Allen, Morten Egeberg, Johan P Olsen and David Spence, together with three anonymous referees, for their useful comments and suggestions.

⁴ As Ruggie (1989, 32) points out, ‘how we think about transformation fundamentally shapes what we look for; what we look for obviously has an effect on what we find; if we look for signs of transformation through the lenses of conventional structural approach of our discipline we are unlikely to conclude that anything much is happening out there… [T]he fabric of international life is made up of micro-cases: the policymakers usually do not get to choose on the future of the state system; they confront choices on exchange rates … terrorist attacks on airport lobbies and embassy compounds, and garbage that floats down a river or is transported through the air. If change comes it will be the product of micro-practices. Hence if we want to understand change or help to shape it, it is to these micro-practices that we should look.’

⁵ ‘Vienna as a Locus of Change in Intra-EU Diplomacy’—roundtable discussion organized by the Institute for European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, sponsored by the Cultural Department of the City of Vienna, and held at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna on 7 February 2008.

⁶ In the selection of embassies for interviews we included small and large member states, member states belonging to various waves of EU enlargement, as well as neighbouring countries of the UK and Austria. In London, we interviewed representatives of the embassies of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Slovakia. The same embassies minus Austria and plus the UK were interviewed in Vienna. All interviewees were senior diplomats, usually in political sections, including at least one ambassador and a number of first secretaries/counsellors (interviews were conducted under the condition of anonymity). Apart from one London embassy where two were present, we interviewed one diplomat in each mission. The interviews lasted on average 60 minutes. Questions focused on the functions of the embassy; types of agenda that the embassy would work on; its communication patterns in relation to governmental and non-governmental actors in the country of posting; communication patterns in relation to actors in the home government; as well as issues related to organizational change and allocation of personnel resources. In this way, in-depth insights could be gathered on the day-to-day routines and practices of the respective embassy, which often provide a more complex picture than formal organograms and official information provided on websites. Additional background information was gained from the Vienna roundtable and through contacts within several foreign ministries.

⁷ Confidential interview, German embassy, London, 13 May 2008.

⁸ Confidential interview, Danish embassy, London, 14 May 2008.

⁹ Confidential interview, Netherlands embassy, London, 6 May 2008.

¹⁰ Our interviewee in the Slovak embassy made the point that Heathrow Airport constitutes a significant diplomatic ‘transit point’, estimating that about a dozen foreign delegations pass through Heathrow every day.

¹² Confidential interview, British embassy, Vienna, 25 April 2008.

¹¹ These included mutual promotion of candidatures for posts in the UN and other international organizations, but also tasks such as checking the diplomatic quotas for purchase of hard liquor valid in Austria.

¹³ Confidential interview, French embassy, London, 16 May 2008.

¹⁴ Confidential interview, French embassy, London, 16 May 2008.

¹⁵ Confidential interview, German embassy, Vienna, 14 May 2008.

¹⁶ Confidential interview, British embassy, Vienna, 25 April 2008.

¹⁷ Confidential interview, Danish embassy, Vienna, 30 April 2008.

¹⁸ Confidential interview, French embassy, Vienna, 24 April 2008.

¹⁹ Thus, responses to questions on this theme, suggested that between 75 and 90 per cent of activities were determined by the individual diplomat.

²⁰ Confidential interview, London, 20 May 2008.

²¹ Confidential interview, French embassy, London, 16 May 2008.

²² Confidential interview, French embassy, Vienna, 24 April 2008.

²³ Confidential interview, Austrian embassy, London, 23 May 2008.

²⁴ Confidential interview, French embassy, Vienna, 24 April 2008.

²⁵ The Danish embassies in both Vienna and London reported a case in early 2008 when all Danish embassies in the EU were instructed by headquarters to lobby the respective member state governments in favour of a ban on a fertilizer product containing chemicals from which explosives could be made relatively easily.