In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

chapter 4 Diplomats and External Security the political and security committee The Political and Security Committee (PSC, also known by its French acronym, COPS) is an appropriate comparison to Coreper, as it is another key grouping of ambassadors in›uencing security outcomes.1 It is also a valuable comparison because while Coreper is a strong example of an epistemic community of diplomats, PSC is weaker in comparison, demonstrating the added value of the epistemic community framework. Relative weakness in an epistemic community is clearly re›ected in network cohesion and the ability to exercise independent agency. Without the epistemic community framework, it would be easy to assume that PSC is for all intents and purposes the same as Coreper but with a different policy focus. PSC, too, is involved in an important part of EU security policy, and its jurisdiction has grown over time. But just because PSC as a committee does more and more work does not mean that PSC as an epistemic community is getting more and more in›uential. The ambassadors who comprise PSC clearly qualify as an epistemic community: They constitute a professional network with a shared body of expert knowledge and seeking to affect policy outcomes. But not all groups of experienced ambassadors achieve their policy aims. Moreover, the prospects for strengthening PSC, beyond its current level of cohesion, may be quite minimal. Coreper and PSC share the historical background discussed in chapter 3. Both are the product of processes and professional norms that have evolved for centuries, and both are now organized under the umbrella of the Council of the European Union. Like Coreper, PSC comprises an ambassador from each member state, and all have undergone the same training and selection procedures that bring them to their current high-status positions. They have 122 typically met each other in other settings, as is the nature of diplomatic corps across Europe, and their work involves constantly persuading each other and their capitals to agree to new levels of compromise. At the same time, some visible differences separate PSC from Coreper. PSC focuses on external rather than internal security, and especially Common Security and Defence Policy. Coreper formally outranks PSC; Coreper’s members thus tend to be somewhat more senior than PSC ambassadors. And Coreper has existed for more than forty years longer than PSC. Some distinctions are less visible but just as crucial. PSC deals primarily with crisis situations, meaning that the amount of time its ambassadors have to deliberate on a particular issue is typically shorter than Coreper’s. In fact, crises are often unique, so that when they strike, ambassadors must spend a great deal of time reading various texts to prepare for their discussions on how to craft an EU response. In addition, since external security is the most dif‹cult area for governments to hold at arm’s length, member states on occasion prevent PSC from deliberating on certain issues that should fall under PSC’s jurisdiction. One example is the 2002–3 Iraq crisis, when ambassadors were forbidden to put Iraq on their agenda.2 This may not be surprising given the major differences in Paris and London at the time. In other instances, PSC ambassadors may be permitted to discuss a sensitive issue, but member states may also require additional representatives to attend the meeting to ensure that their preferences are effectively conveyed. In these cases, meetings become quite large, often topping 100 individuals, making consensus building and real deliberation nearly impossible. This may sometimes be the case in certain formal meetings of Coreper, but there is more occasion for this in PSC. As an epistemic community, PSC is weaker than Coreper not because of any quality inherent in the ambassadors but because of the circumstances that bring them together and the dynamic into which they fall after arriving in Brussels to assume their posts. The four main qualities that determine an epistemic community’s cohesiveness and ability to in›uence are selection and training, meeting frequency and quality, shared professional norms, and common culture. In terms of selection and training, although PSC ambassadors are slightly more junior than those in Coreper, they are otherwise subject to the same rigorous selection procedures. The other three qualities, however, are quite weak compared to Coreper. For PSC ambassadors , informal meetings are less frequent, and many other actors are in the room during formal meetings. PSC ambassadors have dif‹culty conDiplomats and External Security 123 [3.145.186.6] Project MUSE (2024...

Share