BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.

The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1 1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11 improve this
The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.

The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1 1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11 improve this
The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.

One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Enlargement Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign and security policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo.
The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.

Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.
There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.

The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused. 1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11
The EU has already been unifying on multiple fronts, this is just a step in the same direction.

The EU has slowly been building up its own common military framework, with the UK and France leading the effort to pool European military capacity. In addition, the EU itself has created  new institutional bodies such as the Political and Security Committee, a Military Committee and military staff. The EU has had military envoys in Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and has committed itself to the creation of a Common Security and Defense Policy with 3-4,000 troops on permanent standby in multilateral ‘battlegroups’ ready for immediate deployment(see Rockwell Schnabel’s article listed below)1.  While incremental, these are steps not to be ignored. The Union has also placed that military capacity within the broader context of a security strategy designed to promote international peace, justice and development. 1. Schnabel, Rockwell A., 'U.S. Views on the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy', The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. IX. Issue2., (Winter/Spring 2003) accessed 1/8/11 improve this
The fact that it is a Representative highlights the fact that the EU is based on consultation and consensus, and that is a positive thing.

While the new ‘EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy’ marks only a bold first step towards a more unified voice for the EU, the decisions are indeed still based on a state by state consultation mechanism – hence the name representative. This should however not to be downplayed as a less significant change in how the EU approaches its foreign policy. The consultation aspect is in fact essential to reaching agreement and the importance of not only presenting a united front to the rest of the world (the EU is exemplary in trade policy and environmental policy, but less important when it comes to presenting a united voice in foreign policy as Belgian Foreign minister Mark Eyskens put it in 1991 “Europe is an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm” 1, but also creating a united front through collaboration and debate. One should thus see this not only as a means to an end, but rather as an important mechanism in itself, whereby new identities are slowly created along with a deeper sense of commitment to a common set of values. 1. Craig R Whitney, ‘WAR IN THE GULF: EUROPE; Gulf Fighting Shatters Europeans’ Fragile Unity’, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/25/world/war-in-the-gulf-europe-gulf-fighting-shatters-europeans-fragile-unity.html
The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.

The creation of a post of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission (HRVP) marks an important change in the decision making process at the EU level with regards to foreign policy. Agreement on the post showed a clear commitment to the pursuit of a common EU foreign policy and to developing a unique cooperative model for foreign and defense policy decision making that goes beyond the nation state. Member states should now deliver on that commitment by seeking as much common ground as possible to ensure that the High Representative’s role is truly significant. The goal of a common foreign and security policy should thus be supported not only as a mechanism to streamline EU’s position and role in world politics, but also to reinforce notions of cooperation and consultation essential for maintaining a stable international system, in line with the stated goals of the EU. (The 12 stars in a circle is meant to symbolize the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe)1. 1 Europa.eu, 'Symbols',accessed 1/8/11
The High Representative will be a catalyst and a facilitator for decision-making.

The High Representative will not only act as a spokesman for EU nations when they agree on foreign policies, but will act as a catalyst around which external policy will increasingly become coordinated. By chairing meetings of EU foreign ministers, he or she will be able to shape the agenda and influence the outcomes of meetings, encouraging member states increasingly to think in terms of common foreign policy positions. They will have added authority from their ability to speak for the EU in the UN Security Council. The High Representative will also direct the EU’s new External Action Service, which brings together policy specialists from both the Council and Commission in a unique manner (ranging from the Arctic region to nuclear safety and enlargement) 1. With representatives all over the world the EU will develop a foreign service capable of creating and articulating policy positions in a manner that few national governments can match. Over time this will promote the evolution of a true EU foreign and security policy, and will contribute significantly to increased European consciousness among EU citizens and further moves to political unity. 1. European Union External Action, Policies, accessed 1/8/11 improve this
The post of a High Representative is merely a shadow of what it should have been, and its failure shows the EU's inability to consolidate foreign policy.

While seemingly groundbreaking, the current agreement on the EU reform treaty was nothing but a lame attempt to salvage a much bolder initiative: an EU Constitution. The rejection of the EU Constitution in the Dutch and French referendums, as well as the extreme difficulty in getting even its watered-down version accepted, shows the extent to which the member states of the EU are not yet ready to think and act in unison. The UK representatives successfully insisted that the language of the reform treaty clearly states that major foreign policy decisions will continue to be taken at the state level.
The previous arrangement of having two foreign policy centers (in the Commission and in the Council) was arguably inefficient, but consolidating these into a single office-holder has created more complexity and at significantly greater expense.

Creating a position of EU High Representative is not objectionable in itself. Previously the EU was in the ludicrous situation of having two foreign affairs spokesmen, one from the Council and the other from the Commission. Rivalry and duplication of efforts, staffs and resources results, and so focusing all the EU’s external affairs work around one person makes some sense. What it does not mean is that the High Representative should lead a drive for a stronger common foreign policy position. Only when member states agree (which may not be often) will he or she have a role. In fact, by weakening the foreign affairs role within the Commission, this development may actually limit the pretensions of Brussels to develop its own agenda and dictate foreign policy to the member states.
There have been tests on the EU's ability to create a common foreign policy that it has failed.

The War in Iraq, along with previous notable failures to deal with the breakup of former Yugoslavia, has been an excellent test for the extent to which the EU can claim to have a common approach to world politics and foreign policy in particular. It has clearly pointed out a whole range of diverse and often opposed national interests, and national publics that were unwilling to make compromises along EU lines of commitment. It has also showed that the economic power of the EU is not enough to turn it into a major player on the international scene: the lack in military power and presence speaks for itself. The EU still lies very much under the umbrella of NATO and US military power and as long as this military dependency continues, the EU will not be able to have its own independent voice in world politics. 1 1. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2056317,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2056317,00.html
Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue

Celebrities, unlike athletes, work for themselves whereas athletes represent the country. Military service means representing the nation to the rest of the world as does being an athlete, that’s the reason for the exemption, not simply a matter of celebrity. The psychologist Hwang Sang-Min[1] has made clear that “Entertainers are thought to work for their own sakes. That’s the difference.” Park Ji-Sung and his teammates were representing their country and achieved a national first. Granting an exemption recognised their accomplishment on behalf of the country. In a very literal meaning of the phrase they performed national service. Equating such an accomplishment with a performer who is simply doing their job – for which they are well paid – misses the point of the exemptions. Singers and actors happen to be Korean; they are not acting or singing for Korea. Indeed given the speed with which some performers have given up their nationality in a bid to avoid national service, comparing it to a genuine national accomplishment seems absurd. When actors such as Song Seung-heon attempted to avoid national service they were rightly decried and their actions have far more in common with the sons of politicians and businessmen who seek to use their status to avoid the draft. [1] Salon.com, Jim Lee, Pop Sensation Rain Joins the South Korean Army
Celebrities are in the unusual position of requiring constant media attention

Anyone setting out on such a career is aware of the legal requirement to undertake service in the armed forces. There is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it before they start their career. There are plenty of jobs where it is inconvenient to have to take an extended break. Anything relating to technology or research, for example, where there is a need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field is fairly unforgiving of such a break and so people build their careers around it, knowing that at some point they will be out of the loop for 24 months or so. To suggest that it is more important that a pop star is able to keep on recording but that it is for scientist and technicians in the most wired country in the world to keep up with changes in technology is as inconsistent as it is unfair. The case of the performer is clearly weaker it’s simply that they have the status and fame to mean that they can make a big fuss about it and people will notice. Whatever the vanity of celebrity may suggest it’s just another job and it’s questionable as to how much benefit it actually provides to society at large. Further pandering to that vanity by suggesting that society can’t cope without a particular singer or actor for two years is ridiculous. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job.
Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.

Again, there is nothing to stop celebrities doing their military service before they start performing but, even were that not the case, military service is not something that is undertaken because it is convenient or easy but rather something that is done because it is necessary. The country is at risk of invasion, it is still technically at war with the North and in the last Kim Jong-Il has become increasingly erratic. Of all professions surely performers, with their peculiar interest in the combination of a consumer society and the right to freedom of expression have the greatest interest in insuring that the north doesn’t invade. Neither wars nor dictatorships are particularly known for encouraging the performing arts.
One of the great strengths of national service is that it demonstrates that everyone is equal

Celebrities fulfill two important roles that allow them to demonstrate that they are better serving the national interests by pursuing their careers. The first is the unifying and moral building effect on the nation. It is even possible to argue as some scholars have[1] that in an increasingly fractured society, celebrities may be the only people who can have a unifying effect. The second role is taking an international profile. They act as a constant reminder to the world of the existence of South Korea and that it is a free country with a thriving arts scene. These roles make a far greater difference to the process of protecting the state and the freedoms for which it stands than they could ever do as just another man in fatigues. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00380.x/full
There are many professions that could more sensibly be given exemption such as teachers

There may well be a case to be made that certain other professions or groups should be given exemptions. That does not, however, demonstrate that celebrities should not. This simply reflects the fact that, by definition, celebrities are not typical citizens. They provide a valuable role in society and that should be recognised. They provide entertainment and glamour in peoples’ lives, they promote Korea around the world and they are also very few in number. News reports whenever a celebrity undertakes national service are always keen to stress that they will not receive special treatment, it is difficult to see why. Historically, entertainers serving in military forces around the world are always used to build national morale and yet in South Korea they are not. It is this instance that is the exception to the rule.
Celebrities are respected by young people and this is a way in which they can act as a role model and set a positive example.

It seems, frankly unfair to ask people to destroy their careers on the basis that it will encourage others to do something that the law already requires of them. The legislation for national service was structured on the basis of a country that was very different from modern day Korea. In 1953 Korea was the poorest country in the world and national service was, among other things, a useful tool for training and providing employment for the young. That is simply no longer the case. The legislation and the principals that underpin it are simply not designed to deal with a Korean in their twenties who is already recognised around the world and has a staggeringly successful career. It’s clear that the framers acknowledged that there was at least one profession where people could excel while still young – hence the exemption for highly successful athletes. The fact is that 60 years ago the idea of a rapper, singer or actor who could genuinely promote Korea around the world was simply not there.
Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue

The South Korean government issues occasional exemptions to athletes who have won an Olympic gold medal or achieved a similar feat. If we accept that the law ought to be consistent then there is no reason why entertainers should not be proffered the same opportunity. Both professions tend to favour the young and the requirement that military service needs to be completed before the age of thirty mean that either career would be interrupted just at the point when the individual is likely to be at the height of their skills. Equally both groups bring prestige for Korea as a nation. Entertainers like Jung-Ji Hoon (Rain) have just as much of a following as athletes such as Park Ji-Sung who, along with his team mates on the Korean national team was exempted from military service for reaching the semi-finals of the world cup[1]. Indeed Rain predominantly works in Korea and has a following throughout the country and the region whereas Park has spent most of his career playing for foreign teams. [1] Arsenal Forum, August 30 2011
Celebrities are in the unusual position of requiring constant media attention

The career path of celebrities is unusual in that it accretes over time on the basis of the performers standing in the public mind. Unlike other professions this does not lend itself to taking two years out of the limelight, especially years when fame is coming to its height. The media is notoriously fickle and equally well-known for having a short memory. It generally struggles to stay interested in a celebrity if they’re out of the limelight for more than a few weeks. It is simply unfeasible that they would remain interested when someone has been out of the spotlight for over two years. In effect this means that for a Korean musician or actor their career will finish at the age of 29. In other profession it is possible to build a career around national service and employers know that at some point any young man they employ will need to undertake their military service but celebrities simply aren’t employed in this way.
Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.

For most professions, getting military service out of the way early in one’s career makes sense. Nobody would suggest that members of other professions should be expected to interrupt it when they are at the height of their profession. In reality for most people this would be when they are in their fifties.  For professions like acting and music this tends to be the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, for pop singers in particular their career is likely to be over when they are 35. In the light of this setting the age limit where it is is uniquely unfair to performers – just as it is to athletes. Military service anywhere in the world is considered to be something you undertake before your career, not in the middle of it. Regulations should reflect reality, in this instance that means allowing performers to get on with their careers.
One of the great strengths of national service is that it demonstrates that everyone is equal

Both the Constitution and the National Security Act[1] make it explicitly clear that there are occasions when individuals in South Korea must surrender some of their liberty in the interests of preserving the state. These pieces of legislation and others reflect the reality of living next door to North Korea. The whole point of legislation that preserves the state is that it applies to everybody. Particularly in the instance of national service, the moment it becomes optional it ceases to work. No doubt many of those who have been arrested under the NSA took the attitude that it really didn’t, or shouldn’t, apply to them. It does. Even if a compelling case could be made for celebrities to have the right not to serve, it is inconceivable that such a case could be made exclusively for celebrities. It is hard to see how the national interest is well served by having someone appear in a soap opera or a record sleeve but not by having someone in an emergency room or classroom. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(South_Korea)#cite_note-2