Time for the EU to Show More Muscle
By Julianne Smith

The EU has never been a big issue in American politics.  Despite the EU's central role in many issues that matter to average Americans, from agriculture to producing airplanes to combating terrorism, most don't really understand what the EU is or fully grasp how radical its underlying concept - the gradual breaking down of borders through the political and economic unification of Europe - aspires to be.  To be sure, Americans should be paying more attention.  But the difficult truth is that no U.S. politician, not even those Democrats that most Europeans feel a deeper affinity with, is ever going to win an election by talking much about the EU.  In fact, it is hard to imagine that the two letters will be uttered or asked about at any political rally or town hall meeting during the 2008 presidential campaign.  

Why is this?  Part of the problem is that for many American politicians and for most U.S. citizens, the EU remains both confusing and confused.  (Many Europeans, by the way, share the same sentiment.)  Despite the EU's efforts to develop a more coherent foreign policy - as shown by Javier Solana's efforts in Iran and the Middle East of late - Europe still does not speak with one voice.  One only needs to look at the array of statements coming out of European capitals on missile defense to find one such example. 

The rotating presidency also makes continuity difficult both in terms of EU goals and in the EU's relationship with the United States.  Sometimes, as we're witnessing now under the German Presidency, the EU-U.S. relationship is able to capitalize on the strong personal ties between the U.S. President and the leader of the country in the driver seat and enjoy a period of real productivity.  Other times, under weaker leadership, the wheels of progress are slow and Washington's attention drifts. 

Moreover, Americans see the EU as uncertain about what it wants to be and where it wants to go.  The legacy of the failure of the EU constitution still lingers.  It seems long ago that anyone took seriously the once fashionable idea that the EU might soon become an opposite "pole" that would counter U.S. interests.  Americans no longer fear a stronger EU.  In fact, many Americans now fear the opposite - a weaker EU, one that allows the debates over the future of the Constitutional Treaty to inhibit its ability to act.

Despite the EU's absence as a big issue in American politics, leading U.S. policy elites on both sides of the political aisle (especially those who want to be in the White House in 2009) do understand the EU's importance and relevance.  For example, as Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a policy conference in Brussels last year, "we need an EU-U.S. relationship that is as close and durable as NATO was during the Cold War."  That sentiment is widely shared among policy elites as a goal worth striving for.

Yet from the U.S. political trenches, that reality seems far off.  At a strategic level, the EU still has a long way to go before the relationship is seen as a top issue for American foreign policy, and therefore American politics.  This week's summit is a perfect illustration of the challenge.  Taking place at a moment when political Washington is consumed with an issue to which Europe is contributing very little - the showdown between Bush and Congress over whether to end the war in Iraq - the summit discussions will be little more than a footnote.  Added to the problems that a number of European countries are having with meeting their commitments to Afghanistan, many American politicians have good reason to wonder what kind of partner Europe can, or actually wants to, be.

Yet it is not in the interests of either Europe or the U.S. for the EU to be seen as a partner for only second-order questions concerning global stability.  So what can the EU do to be more relevant?

The EU should show more muscle.  As an institution that proclaims itself the preeminent advocate of soft power, the EU is now well placed to put its overarching strategy into practice.  Its first stop should be Afghanistan.  While the EU has been on the ground since December 2001, providing large sums of development assistance and working with other organizations on reconstruction projects, its contributions are inadequate when one considers the size of the challenge.  Given its toolbox of capabilities and institutional strengths, the EU should assume a much stronger leadership role in Afghanistan by coordinating European contributions, deploying trained civilians, and using its diplomatic offices to convene some of the regional players for a dialogue about Afghanistan's future.

The EU could also do much more to halt the violence in Darfur.  Like the United States, the UN and others, the EU has been heavy on rhetoric but light on action.  Since the conflict started some three years ago, the EU has taken only a handful of modest and ineffective steps toward a resolution.  (It has, however, done a great deal to assist with the widening humanitarian crisis by contributing more than €350 million in relief aid.) 

The EU, however, is capable of playing a much more influential role than it has to date.  Virtually all observers of the conflict agree that forceful measures are needed to persuade Khartoum to halt the violence.  Experience has shown that the Sudanese respond to firm international pressure, as witnessed in 2005 when Sudan signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ending the civil war in the south.  With the United States consumed with Iraq and Afghanistan, the EU could easily lead international efforts to apply such pressure through tough and targeted sanctions.  In addition, it could impose travel bans and asset freezes on individuals who have been identified as complicit in the ongoing violence; a list of such individuals can be found in the UN's Commission of Inquiry and Panel of Experts.  Brussels could also impose a freeze on assets and companies inside the EU controlled or owned by Sudan's ruling National Congress Party.

Of course, the EU shouldn't pursue these policies because Washington wishes it so.  The EU should flex its muscle because Europeans want it to.  Polls show that a majority of Europeans want a stronger EU.  Europeans are ready for the EU to take a big step onto the world stage as a foreign policy actor that matches its words with deeds.  The world is too.

Julianne Smith is Director and Senior Fellow of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

This essay first appeared in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and also in the May 11, 2007, AICGS Advisor.