ESCALATING violence in Ukraine and criticism of the European Union’s confused response to it has provoked Europe-wide soul-searching on the role and influence of the 28-nation bloc, both in its so-called “neighbourhood” and on the global stage.

Ukraine is clearly top of the agenda, with EU foreign ministers agreeing at an emergency session in Brussels to impose economic sanctions on Ukrainian officials believed to be responsible for the violence. At least 21 anti-government protesters have died in Kiev in recent clashes with government forces.

But the discussion is not just about dousing the fires in Ukraine. Recent weeks have been marked by lengthy discussions on the EU’s regional and global outreach, with experts seeking to assess the performance of the European External Action Service (EEAS), set up in 2009 as the EU’s “foreign ministry”, and of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton who heads the new body.

Both Ashton and the EEAS get mixed reviews. Interestingly, Ashton who for years was criticised for her lack of foreign policy experience and failure to run a robust EU foreign policy is now getting respect and admiration for her part in helping defuse tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear programme. The EU foreign policy chief has also been praised for a much-celebrated deal to normalise relations between Serbia and Kosovo.

The EEAS, meanwhile, is also getting some kudos for becoming more pro-active, stronger and more efficient in setting and implementing the EU foreign policy agenda.

It’s not all plain-sailing, however. EU foreign policy remains a work in progress — painfully slow and ineffective at times, speedier and more successful at others. There’s still no single number that foreign leaders can call in case of emergency. And there’s still much confusion about just what the EU can and cannot do under the Lisbon Treaty, the bloc’s latest constitution.

The fact is the initial hype and expectations about the EEAS and Ashton were much too high. Many anticipated much too optimistically that the 28-nation bloc would miraculously agree on a “single” response to global and regional crisis, speak with “one voice” and give Ashton the power to act and negotiate on the behalf of all EU governments.

The EEAS, for its part, was seen as the hub of European foreign policy action, reflection and analysis and the sole, fully-mandated European diplomatic actor on the international stage.

The reality is of course quite different. European foreign policy is a complicated mix of national and European players, each capital often promoting a different agenda, each country with a different focus and priorities, with the EEAS in Brussels struggling to coordinate and unite divergent and discordant voices.

As the EEAS website itself puts it rather modestly, the EEAS seeks to co-operate with, but not replace, the important work done by EU member states. Its role is to be “a catalyst to bring together the foreign policies of member states and strengthen the position of the EU in the world”.

True, some things have changed. EU “embassies” across the world now have a stronger role and presence, with the ambassadors appointed by Ashton largely viewed as the lead European diplomatic players. Clearly, however, national European ambassadors and mission also remain powerful actors.

And that’s the crunch: European foreign policy remains — and is likely to remain — a hybrid affair, with Ashton taking the lead on some issues but often only after close consultation with EU foreign ministers and receiving their mandate (instructions) to do so.

The EU’s two high-profile foreign policy successes — on Kosovo and Iran — are a powerful illustration of how Europe can achieve remarkable results when member states and EU institutions work hand in hand, according to the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank. When such harmony does not exist, EU foreign policy is discordant and ineffective.

In addition to working with national foreign ministries which jealously safeguard their national preserve, the EEAS also faces competition from other EU departments which are becoming even more visible and vocal on the global stage.

The European Commission’s trade directorate is a powerful global actor as it negotiates bilateral, regional and multilateral trade and investment deals with the United States, China and others.

EU development cooperation and humanitarian aid bodies are equally important in their international outreach and increasingly, the focus is also on “climate change diplomacy”, “science diplomacy”, “financial diplomacy” and the like.Ashton and the EEAS have to act and make their
mark on a very crowded European stage, jostling for visibility in the face of media-savvy national foreign ministers and powerful national diplomatic services.

The competition can get fierce as it often does in Europe’s dealings with China, India, Turkey and the United States and discord persists on Syria. In contrast, EU countries appear to be coming together on policy towards Russia and Ukraine.

As she prepares to leave her post this autumn, Ashton can take comfort in the fact that the man or woman set to replace her will struggle just as hard to speak and act for Europe.

—The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.