(R E ) APPRAISING THE PURPOSE OF THE EEAS This section recalls the rationale behind the creation of the EEAS and on that basis, appraises the key functions it should fulfil. The rationale The EEAS’ assignment, its precise role in the general integration process, and position in the EU foreign policy system in particular, have never been clearly stated. Its purpose may only be deduced indirectly from the complex mandate assigned to the HRVP it is intended to assist. The Treaty of Lisbon that envisaged the creation of the Service refers to it only once, in a provision of an organisational and procedural nature. Similarly, the subsequent 2010 Council Decision was drafted as an administrative charter rather than as a mission statement for the EEAS. As prescribed by the Treaty, it sets out the details related to the“organisation and functioning” of the Service(i.e. composition, tasks, and budget) but stops short of articulating its political mandate. As this was not the purpose of this Council Decision, one could have expected it to be complemented by a mission statement. Indeed, despite a Treaty empowerment to that effect, no clear strategic guidance has been provided by the European Council to help the EEAS identify its mission: neither the 2016 EU Global Strategy nor the ensuing implementation reports address the question of the EEAS’ role in pursuing EU strategic goals. From the moment of conception, various options have been mooted based on different institutional(vested) interests and considerations, but with no appetite on the part of the stakeholders to make a definitive choice. Should the EEAS act as a kind of European Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with full functional and political autonomy, providing the sought-after unity in EU external action? Or should it be a mere Secretariat General in charge of coordinating the external actions of the respective players inside the EU system, while striving to maintain its overall coherence? Should it limit itself to being the voice of the Union’s foreign policy, dedicated simply to expressing the common positions agreed by the EU actors, if any? Or could it claim to play a role akin to that of a policy planning unit, tasked with thinking out a more innovative diplomacy for the whole Union? For want of a decision, the European diplomatic service ended up incorporating the EU’s procedural intricacies that its establishment was meant partly to overcome. The EEAS has been hesitantly playing one or other of these different roles according to changing circumstances, and where other protagonists have allowed it to perform them. This institutional vagrancy has not gone without tension between the different players. In the absence of clarity in the EEAS’ mission, mistrust has crept in. It has left the diplomatic body with no clear and firm institutional or professional identity and hampered on the EEAS’ esprit de corps while perplexing the outside world. 4|