France and Germany are considering a far-reaching reform of the European External Action Service, the diplomatic arm of the European Union. According to the Financial Times, proposals being discussed in European capitals could limit the powers of the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, and transfer some responsibilities back to the European Commission and member states. If implemented, this would be one of the most significant changes to EU foreign policy since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force.
The European External Action Service was created to give the European Union a more coherent voice in international affairs. Its original purpose was to bring together the interests of member states, the European Commission, and EU institutions responsible for security. Today, however, it is increasingly being accused of failing to meet the challenges of the modern world: the war in Ukraine, growing rivalry with China, instability in the Middle East, and pressure from the United States.
According to the Financial Times, one of the ideas under consideration is to limit the autonomy of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Kaja Kallas, the former prime minister of Estonia, has led EU diplomacy since the beginning of the current European Commission’s term. Her appointment was intended to symbolize a tougher and more unequivocal EU stance toward Russia. Yet in EU foreign policy, determination alone is not enough. What matters most is the agreement of member states, and that is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve on many issues.
Officials quoted by the Financial Times say that some capitals are frustrated with the functioning of the European External Action Service. One of the newspaper’s interlocutors reportedly described it as a dysfunctional structure in need of deep reconstruction. Another warned that there is a real risk that the EEAS could be “taken apart.” In practice, this could mean returning some of its powers to the European Commission, the Council of the EU, or directly to member states.
A particularly sensitive issue is control over the network of more than 140 EU delegations around the world. These delegations function as the EU’s diplomatic missions, representing the Union in relations with third countries and international organizations. Reducing the High Representative’s influence over this network would be a clear signal that the EU’s largest member states want greater control over how the Union speaks and acts beyond its borders.
The matter also has a personal dimension. From the beginning of her term, Kaja Kallas has been seen as a forceful political figure, especially on issues concerning the security of NATO’s eastern flank and policy toward Russia. However, according to reports by the Financial Times, some member states have been dissatisfied with her independent statements, including those concerning relations between the European Union and China. Behind this lies a classic problem of EU foreign policy: where does the mandate of the common representative end, and where does the right of member states to shape strategic relations on their own begin?
A representative of Kaja Kallas, commenting on the matter, emphasized that EU foreign policy is strong when member states are united. That statement captures the essence of the current dispute. The European Union has long declared its ambition to be a global actor, but its effectiveness depends not only on institutions in Brussels, but above all on the political will of national capitals. When Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome, or Madrid have different interests, even the best-designed diplomatic service cannot replace real unity.
The reform of the EEAS may also become linked to negotiations over the next EU budget. Some member states expect savings, simplified procedures, and greater efficiency from EU institutions. In this context, a diplomatic service with an annual budget of around one billion euros becomes a natural subject of political review. The question, however, is whether reform would genuinely improve the EU’s ability to respond to crises, or whether it would further disperse responsibility.
For the European Union, the stakes are high. In recent years, Brussels has repeatedly argued that the world is entering an era of geopolitical rivalry in which Europe must speak with one voice. At the same time, foreign policy remains one of the areas in which member states most carefully guard their sovereignty. The dispute over the future of the EEAS is therefore not merely a technical debate about administrative structure. It is a question of whether the EU is to become an independent actor in global politics, or remain primarily a forum for coordinating national interests.
The potential reform could weaken Kaja Kallas’s position, but it also exposes a deeper problem facing the entire Union. European foreign policy can only be effective when there is genuine agreement among member states behind its institutions. Without that, any structure — regardless of its name or formal powers — will remain vulnerable to accusations of ineffectiveness.
