The European External Action Service in Their Own Words: Hearing the Voices of European Diplomacy
We live in a world interconnected by dense networks of goods, people, and information. These very networks render relations, connectivity, communicative action, and persuasion across boundaries a significant currency of power between states. However, what makes up these networks and brings the world together is also what causes conflict through the weaponisation of interdependencies. We live in a world where wars are not only fought on the battlefield but also on the keyboard (e.g. NAFO). Or the US Presidential election may be won based on ‘vibes’ (i.e. ‘Kamala is brat’). These are only a few examples highlighting the growing importance of public diplomacy and strategic communications in foreign policy and diplomacy. Indeed, they are no longer realms that contribute only to the soft power of a state, but now can largely contribute to its material security and standing in the international society. For the European Union in particular, this standing is not a given. Indeed, the European project seeks to create a common foreign policy out of a multiplicity and diversity of countries, interests, strategic cultures, and voices. Resembling neither a state nor an international organisation, it is a nebulous and complex polity that makes it, for many, a hard-to-grasp actor in international politics. For this very reason, its legitimacy as a global actor is often contested. Consequently, how the EU communicates its foreign policy lines and objectives to the rest of the world, as well as its citizens, is crucial for it to define what kind of actor it is and wants to be in the world. This communicative identity is especially relevant at a time when conflict is fought by distorting information and weaponizing narratives.
The research project “The EEAS in Their Own Words” examines the EU’s diplomatic efforts, not just behind closed doors, but in public fora, interviews, conferences, and speeches. Specifically, it compiles publicly available material from senior officials in 54 different roles at the European External Action Service. It gathered content, ranging from interviews, public remarks and statements to podcast and conference interventions, providing a unique opportunity to analyse both the content and form of the plethora of messages that the day-to-day architects of EU foreign policy send into the world. The objective of the project is to create a repository of these voices to understand how EEAS senior officials communicate EU policy and communicate with global audiences. This data provides a rich archive of more than 670 sources (and counting) that can be used by students and academics in their own research. By representing an alternative or a rich foundation for interview work, this project allows researchers to limit their travels to Brussels and really make the most out of them. In such a way, this academic practice contributes to RENPET’s objective of ‘greening’ the budget.
Methodology
The methodology I used to find the data is far from simple or systematic. Indeed, to locate diverse and comprehensive publicly available data, I combined general search techniques with platform-specific strategies. The key to success was to refine my search terms based on the type of content I was looking for and ensure that I was searching across multiple platforms to avoid missing important materials (or, at least, trying to). The steps and best practices outlined below, however, showcase the lack of a systematic and fast method to gather all available material. No Artificial Intelligence tool was able to achieve nearly half as good results as a lengthy manual search.
1. Create a List of Target Officials
I first identified a list of senior EEAS officials to focus on. The roles selected were:
Deputy Secretary General
Managing Director
Deputy Managing Director
Special Representative
Special Envoy
2. Define the Scope
Second, I defined the search to compile a variety of public sources, such as interviews, speeches, podcasts, press statements, and conference interventions. The repository should capture both more formal statements and casual, real-time engagements. I then identified three main categories of formats under which to compile the sources (written, audio, video) by officials.
3. Search Strategy
My search strategy was iterative – meaning that it was repeated and progressively refined to capture all possible material. I tried variations of the same search with different combinations of keywords and platforms. I started broad, then refined (e.g. I started with “Official’s name EU/EEAS” and then narrowed down to “Official’s name EU/EEAS, keyword”. I selected a number of keywords to use alongside the official’s name, namely:
Podcast
Statement
Remarks
Message
Speech
Conference
Forum
Webinar
Interview and
Video
Example search query: “Peter Wagner EEAS interview”
4. Data Sources
I used the following platforms and techniques to find relevant data. Different platforms specialise in different types of content, so customising search strategies for each will improve the chances of finding specific material.
Site-specific Search: Official EU and EEAS Websites. To find official statements, press releases, speeches, or participation in parliamentary hearings, visit the official websites of the European institutions.
a. EEAS
Targeted Platform Search: Google. Google is a powerful tool for comprehensive searches across various formats.
Targeted Platform Search: Media Platforms.
a. YouTube. YouTube is a key resource for video content, especially for public speeches, press statement, panels, and conference appearances. EEAS officials often appear in videos posted on official EU channels, partner organisations’ channels, or news platforms.
b. Podcast platforms: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or SoundCloud. Many EU senior officials participate in podcasts hosted by EU institutions and delegations, think tanks, or media outlets.
c. Social media: Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Social media platforms are valuable for tracking real-time engagements of EEAS officials. These platforms (most often, the officials’ personal accounts) often contain links to speeches, interviews, or panels that might not appear elsewhere. When public engagements were just mentioned, I would Google (or search on YouTube) the videos of such engagements, specifying the sessions in which the officials took part.
5. Catalogue and Classify the Data
For each piece of data found, I recorded the following details:
Official’s role
Source type: Classify the content as written, audio, or video
Title of source
Date
URL
For each of the sources, I ensured that it was credible and current.
6. Future steps
If the repository is deemed useful, it should be periodically updated by searching for new content for each role. Classifying the content by the official’s role and not by name allows to keep the repository relevant regardless of changes in the individuals holding the position, as it commonly happens in the EEAS or any other diplomatic service.
Results and Analysis
The data collected in the “EEAS in Their Own Words” project currently consists of more than 670 sources, organised by individual EEAS official’s role and source type (written, audio, video). These materials span a wide range of subjects, covering the plethora of policy areas belonging to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The repository highlights a clear pattern in how senior officials at the EEAS disseminate their messages. While formal communications remain the primary method of public declination of the EU’s foreign and security policy, there is a marked shift towards embracing multimedia platforms to reach broader and more diverse audiences. From a structural perspective, the distribution of content types is noteworthy. Of the data gathered, a large proportion of sources are official statements in both written and video material, which serve as the most formal medium of communication. These include scripted speeches and interventions at conferences or international organisations (e.g. at the UN General Assembly). By prioritising clarity and formality, these types of scripted sources offer a more formal and controlled medium for communicating precise diplomatic messages. Indeed, they are particularly effective for detailed policy articulation and in-depth explanation of policy positions or diplomatic initiatives, as well as for projecting the EU’s normative objectives and policies on global platforms, thus giving the EEAS the opportunity to address international audiences.
However, there is an increasing availability of videos of officials going off-script in press statements, European Parliament hearings, or panel discussions. These represent an interesting type of source as they serve as critical platforms for engaging a broader public. Podcasts, audio, and news interviews also provide a more intimate and often more detailed format for dialogue, allowing officials to explore complex diplomatic issues in greater depth (and, sometimes, greater honesty – but I will get back to that). In this vein, such types of off-script sources offer relatively dynamic insights into the real-time evolution of EU diplomacy.
The richness of off-script material demonstrates the growing trend of diplomacy not confined to written statements or relegated behind closed doors but expanding across multimedia platforms. The diversity in this type of sources collected provides a window into the EU’s and other global actors’ evolving diplomatic strategies in new realms. Indeed, platforms like YouTube, social media, news outlets, or the EU multimedia channels – namely the European Parliament’s Multimedia Centre – allow EEAS officials to present the EU’s real-time perspective on pressing global issues. This new form of “real-time diplomacy” does not only offer viewers and researchers a front-row seat to the unfolding of diplomatic events and the EEAS’s response to them. In addition, live interaction with the media or in conference panels gives EEAS officials the opportunity for real-time interaction and direct communication with stakeholders. Furthermore, by appearing on public and often non-traditional media platforms, officials expand their reach, connecting with a global audience that may not engage with formal EU sources. For this purpose of enhanced accessibility, videos are highly adaptable, with segments clipped and shared across social media platforms. They also contribute to humanising diplomacy, as visual cues such as facial expressions and body language offer additional layers of communication and allow for direct connection with audiences. Similarly, with their relaxed conversational format, podcasts offer a long-form platform for more nuanced discussions and articulation of the EU’s foreign policy strategies.
This move towards multimedia platforms reflects a shift in diplomatic communication strategies – where engagement is not limited to formal publications but extends into interactive and visual formats. These offer an immediacy and emotional resonance that written formats may lack, allowing EEAS officials to make more accessible the complexity of the EU’s foreign policy machinery to both expert and general audiences. Leveraging different media types and blurring the lines between formal and informal communication channels hence can represent a valid digital diplomacy strategy for the EEAS to ensure that its diplomatic messages reach and resonate with varied audiences.
However, sometimes more can be told about what is not found than what is found. While public engagements, interviews, official statements, and keynote speeches from EEAS can be (more or less) easily found, the absence of genuine diplomatic interaction is striking. Indeed, the messaging provided by senior EEAS officials in the collected sources does not stray away from the EEAS’s official policy lines. Although officials are offered, through off-script, live interactive formats the possibility to express their views or to actively engage with stakeholders in a personal capacity, they show a strict reluctance to leave their institutional roles. As a matter of fact, the content of this data suggests a high emphasis on the EU’s normative values and power when engaging with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the repetition of the EU’s official policy stances on specific topics potentially hints at a hesitation to modify the hard-fought consensus reached between Member States and a desire to avoid controversy. It can therefore be argued that, while new strategies of digital diplomacy can broaden the reach, enhance engagement, and offer flexibility in how the EU’s diplomatic messages are articulated, received, and understood, real diplomatic decisions and negotiations are still made behind closed doors.
The lack of systematicity in the availability and accessibility of data further shows the organic – rather than voluntary or strategic – nature and growth of the EEAS’s media reach through its senior officials. There is truly ‘no method to the madness’ to compile a complete list of data available for each official, and no official EU repository or online source through which it can be found. Also, most of the material on multimedia platforms has few visualisations, showing not only limited reach, but also a lack of institutional effort in promoting it. Therefore, the work done by senior officials in disseminating the EU’s diplomatic messages is not at all institutionalised, promoted, collected or systematised by the EEAS. This shows still little understanding of the potential of digital diplomacy to improve strategic communications, hence influence in an increasingly interconnected world. The EEAS does not consciously capitalise on the richness of the multimedia material that its officials have already put ‘out there’, signalling limited awareness of the need for modern diplomacy to be hybrid – both official and interacting – reaching beyond traditional official communications to connect with a diverse, digitally-savvy global audience.
Overall, the project reveals the richness of content already available from senior officials at the EEAS. Through multiple formats, they mostly succeed in articulating to broad and diverse audiences not only the strategic direction of EU foreign policy, which is often hidden between controversies and disagreements between its Member States but also the values driving it. However, there still lacks an institutional holistic strategy of digital diplomacy and communications and an awareness of the changing media landscape in a world in which narratives and information are weaponised but also multimedia channels are indispensable for fostering global dialogue and engagement.
Lastly, the repository can also provide a new, accessible form of interaction between practitioners and academic audiences, improving the dialogue between theory and practice in EU foreign policy. For this and environmental reasons, the utility of this repository should be assessed in the future to understand if it can represent a new and effective academic practice and methodology in European Studies and beyond.