The European Union Feels Neglected

The Baroness Ashton, who is the EU's head diplomat, has written a five page paper dealing with the needed changes in the supra-national entity's diplomatic relations.  Much of the leaked exercise in whining deals with the perception in Brussels that Europe is no longer the primary focus of American foreign policy.

The Baroness, a person bereft of previous diplomatic experience or, indeed, governmental background beyond service on one of the UK's innumerable quangos, holds the cause of the current lack of EU influence on Washington to be the consequence of European lack of unity.  Apparently, Ms Ashton has convinced herself that the failure of Europe to speak with a single voice has assured its irrelevance to American policy makers.

A cynic might be tempted to dismiss her assessment of both cause and effect to be a transparent effort in empire building.  Ms Ashton's argument certainly leans in the direction of seeking to elevate the EU's diplomatic apparatus above the foreign policy establishments of the individual member states.  There is no doubt that the Baroness's report to the EU is of a piece with earlier proclamations of the supremacy of the EU's ambassador in Washington over those of the individual states.

A less cynical but equally realistic person might conclude that the Baroness has thrown down the gauntlet of challenge.  The document by its demands for a more unified European voice asserts that there is an authentic political entity called the European Union which is more than simply the sum of its sovereign parts.  As such the document calls on the Euro-fanatics to stage a sort of foreign policy putsch against the national establishments.

Since there is no actual political entity hiding behind the name "European Union," there is no need nor is their any reason for the US to pay any particular attention to the desires or dictates of the Eurocrats in Brussels.  Unless and until the EU morphs into a genuine political body with all the features of sovereignty which characterize a state, this situation will not change.  Nor should it.

While the notion of a United States of Europe with all the attributes of central government sovereignty such as apply to other federated states has long beguiled segments of the European elites, the dream (or nightmare) is far from achieving reality as the current Euro zone monetary problems demonstrate.  As a result, there is really no reason for the EU to have any influence in Washington beyond that achieved by one or another of its member states.

Apologists for the Ashton position would note that President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable lack of interest in or concern for Europe.  Beyond the use of European locales for the Great Tour of 2008, Mr Obama has not only ignored Europe, he has scorned it.  Even symbolic engagements such as meeting with European leaders on the sidelines of EU conferences have been allowed to slide by.  Considering the importance of symbolism in foreign relations, this sort of back-of-me-hand approach has been seen by Europeans as a mark of profound disrespect.

Of course, the Obama treatment has been laden with disrespect.  However Ms Ashton is wrong to conclude that they are emblematic of a unique disdain for the EU.  President Obama has shown himself to be equally tone deaf in his treatment of individual leaders including those of the UK, the closest ally the US has in the fractious EU.

Then there is the other side of the coin.  Just how good have the assorted countries of the EU been as allies and parters of the US?  A strong case can be made for the proposition that with allies like those countries the US has no need for enemies.

The European states have not been close nor effective collaborators in the presumably joint effort in Afghanistan with the notable exceptions of the UK and France.  The members of the EU were far more against us than with us in the great adventure in regime change in Iraq again with the notable exception of the UK.

In a not dissimilar fashion, the elites of the EU states have not been in close concert with the US on the critical matter of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  Indeed, these worthies have been even more willing than their American counterparts to engage in systematic efforts to deny the legitimacy of Israel.  Attempts to undercut the right of Israel to exist in peace and with defensible borders in no way assists in the effort to find a way to peace in the region.

While the EU has finally become more forthright and effective in its collective effort to back the American sponsored play in the matter of Iran and its quest for nuclear capability, that development came almost too late to matter.  It must be noted that member states still seek creative ways to evade the sanctions for the benefit of their domestic economies.  Overall, the EU in both actions and words has given very little reason for Americans to accept the contention that the body and its members are good allies in a common cause.

The EU apparently fears a US collaboration with China which leaves the Union out of the game.  There is good reason for this apprehension.  China is far more important to the US now and into the future.  It is a formidable adversary of the US, which must be handled with great care and even greater realism less it become an even larger threat in the years to come.  It is difficult enough to deal with Beijing on a bilateral basis.  It is much harder to engage the Trolls of Beijing in the context of multilateral meetings as has been shown repeatedly by the Six Power Talks and their aftermath.

While there is minimal likelihood of the US and China ever establishing any simulacrum of a co-dominion or even the sort of bi-polar environment of the Cold War sort, there is a requirement for the US to establish in an effective way lines across which the Chinese cannot cross.  In this context there is a role for the EU to play, but it is not one of equality as the Baroness apparently desires.

The Chinese, not unlike the Russians (or the advocates of violent political Islam for that matter), respect force above all other considerations.  The immediate expression of force may be confined to the economic sphere, but must rest when night falls on the credible capacity and political will to use military might in pursuit of policy.  The Europeans are even less likely than the Americans to accept this hoary but nonetheless true principle of diplomacy.  Attempting to get the EU to agree to use armed force is a task compared to which the Labor of Sisyphus becomes a walk in the sun.

The near universal cuts in military expenditure in the EU underscores the melancholy fact that European diplomatic influence has become a rapidly wasting asset.  This in turn undercuts the argument made by Ms Ashton that it will take only a single voice approach to foreign relations for Europe to reclaim its pride of place in American strategic considerations.

There is another very important point left unaddressed by the Ashton report.  What is in it for the US should the EU speak with a more unified voice?  That is, what advantages accrue to American policy if the EU reigns supreme over the often dissonant European chorus?

There is no immediately obvious answer to these questions.  Actually, a stronger case can be made for the contention that European dissonance benefits the US.  While the Americans have not and should not pursue an intentionally divide and conquer approach to the several European states, internal divisions in the continent allow the US to follow a course of exploiting to its advantage any of these organic divisions when such is necessary or desirable.

Ms Ashton, like the Eurocrats generally, has an inbuilt distaste for the nation-state.  Again, like the European elites overall, she has a fondness for supra-national institutions which surpasses logical understanding.  She has no choice but to see the future of European foreign relations in terms of the EU and not the self-defined national interests of its member states.

Ironically, she has a soulmate in President Obama.  The Clueless Guy In The Oval would like to deal with the EU as a single voice rather than the cacophony of conflicting voices which has been and will continue to be Europe.

But the reality is the nation-state is far from the scrapheap of history.  The Baroness Ashton is simply not attuned to reality.  Unlike Mr Obama, she is not elected, not ultimately responsible to an electorate far more given to the appeals of nation and nationalism.  As a result, she can afford to be totally out of touch with reality.  And, bucko, as this five page ditty shows the lady is beaucoup out of touch.