Europe's Empty Promises

Europe has long dreamed of exerting international influence by sending state-building specialists to conflict zones. Unfortunately, most of these guarantees have come to naught.

BY CHRISTOPHER S. CHIVVIS | FEBRUARY 24, 2010

American frustration with Europe's dwindling military capabilities is reaching new heights, as was clear in a speech by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the National Defense University on Tuesday. Gates charged that Europe's aversion to military action constituted "an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st [century]."

Frustration with Europe's aversion to the use of force, combined with European leaders' arguments for civilian solutions to today's security challenges, has generated hope that these allies might compensate for military weakness by contributing civilian experts to the war effort. In previous remarks, Gates called for precisely this, noting that an increase in specialists focused on issues of governance, police training, and counternarcotics, "may be easier for our allies ... than significant troop increases."

Encouraging allied civilian contributions to nation-building in Afghanistan and elsewhere is a good idea. But, if the past is precedent, Gates shouldn't hold his breath waiting for those civilians to arrive.

Civilian work is now widely recognized as an essential ingredient in addressing security challenges around the world. Weak states need people who know how to investigate a murder, run a prison system, collect customs and other taxes, and generally keep a state bureaucracy up and running. There is little point in pacifying a country militarily if its infrastructure, courts, fiscal controls, and health systems are so feeble that chaos returns the moment the troops leave.

Europe seems particularly well-suited for this kind of work. Not only is the European Union the gravitational center of Europe's foreign economic power, Europe is home to some of the most skilled legal, administrative, and law enforcement experts in the world.

Unfortunately, the European Union is failing to live up to its potential. Unless it expands its efforts by taking on more ambitious projects, with larger staff and bigger budgets, the age-old dream of transforming the EU into a civilian power will falter, just as its military prowess continues to decline. NATO -- and the mission in Afghanistan -- will suffer along with it. In its first five years of existence, the EU sent civilian experts to 13 war-torn countries. This sounds impressive, but the vast majority of these missions had fewer than 80 staff members, and most lasted less than a year. Some had little or no impact on the ground.

Police forces are one of the most critical components of these civilian operations. In theory, European states have committed close to 6,000 police to joint EU missions in conflict zones. In reality, however, fewer than 1,800 are now deployed, and the EU has struggled to come up with even half of the 400 staff authorized to conduct police training in Afghanistan, a widely recognized failure.

Europe's dismal record makes one hesitate at Germany's current offer to increase its number of police trainers in Afghanistan from 280 to 1,400. If true, it would represent a surprising, if welcome, break from the past. But Europe has given the United States ample reason to be skeptical that promised increases in civilian experts will ever materialize.

To be sure, deploying civilians is tougher than many realize, and the U.S. record is also far from perfect, as European officials will naturally point out when criticized on their own staffing shortfalls.   Still, the EU needs to undertake more ambitious tasks and be more scrupulous about living up to its own commitments.

It should begin by establishing a standing body of civilian experts who would be stationed and train together on a permanent basis. This corps could be similar to that planned by the United States, which will include 250 staff ready for deployment on 72 hours' notice and 4,000 staff ready to deploy within 30 to 60 days. In the short term, Europe should make more widespread use of contractors to alleviate its staffing problems in Afghanistan.

The success of the European civilian mission in Kosovo provides a glimpse into the potential of Europe's civilian capabilities and gives some glimmer of hope for the future of its effort in Afghanistan and elsewhere. With 1,700 staff, the Kosovo mission is not only much larger by far than any other EU mission, but it has also managed to effectively combine law enforcement and administrative functions in a single coordinated approach, despite Europe's divisions over Kosovo's independence.

Developing the European Union's civilian power should not become a substitute for bolstering allied military capabilities. But the European Union can play a vital role in international affairs by nurturing the institutional structures, know-how, and cultural attitudes that underpin stable regimes and helping millions of people around the world recover from the chaos of war. Only then will the old dream of Europe as a civilian power come true.

PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: AFGHANISTAN, SOUTH ASIA
 

Christopher S. Chivvis is a political scientist with the RAND Corporation and adjunct professor of European studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. He is co-author of Europe's Role in Nation-Building.

TOM G

7:14 AM ET

February 25, 2010

I think that Americans need

I think that Americans need to take a good look at themselves before turfing out advise to Europe and the rest of the world let's put this into context:

1)The United States engaged in 2 wars BEFORE consulting anyone or thinking about the after effects in advance like maybe rebuilding the countries they were invading.

2)In Afghanistan, It's all well and good calling for more troops and engaging enemies in locations where they are rife but then to build infrastructure in theses same locations while the rest of the country which supported your invasion in the first place is neglected by you is asking for trouble.

3)Expecting us in Europe to come to the rescue after NOT asking what we thought and without a plan to fix the country BEFORE you went in.Washington would have got a better response from us in Europe if you had actually sat down with us and said we going here we would like you to help in the reconstruction, rather than telling us were not doing enough after 8 years of procrastination on your part(Iraq is for another day).

I'm sure that if your government had actually not taken massive unilateral steps in the first place you may be leaving Afghanistan in success now instead of bogged down 'demanding' our help also your massive budget deficits may be only half of what they are now.

 

JAYDEE001

12:41 PM ET

February 25, 2010

GLAD YOU SAID THAT!

We in the US do have a habit of leaping before we look, and then crying for the rest of the world to save our butts. The Iraq debacle was a war of choice, which we could-have-should-have avoided, but with fabricated justification, we dragged our allies into it. To chide them for their reluctance to continue such an expedition after the revelations about the false premise for this action is to demonstrate the depths of our arrogance. There have been almost 4700 fatalities in Iraq, most of them US to be sure, but then it was our former president and his administration that created the false basis for that war.

The war in Afghanistan at least had some justification. OBL and al Qaeda were 'guests' of that nation, the government there was hostile to our interests, and we did suffer severe insult at the hands of some of the elements there on 9/11. Al Qaeda or organizations sympathetic to it certainly had some involvement in terrorist actions in Europe and elsewhere. But we (the US) quickly lost interest in that when W and his unsavory gang of neocons decided the business in Iraq took precedence. We also ignored the need for a real effort to stop the Taliban from toppling the government of neighboring Pakistan.

Our foot-dragging on the real war in AfPak lead to the current state of affairs where, eight years in, we are begging the rest of the world for help to extricate us from the quagmire we have bungled into. This will probably end badly, when it ends. Who will have lost Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan? We should look in the mirror. It's not really the fault of Europe or the rest of the world.

 

NORBOOSE

11:54 AM ET

February 26, 2010

Attention Tom G

Tom, yes, the US made huge mistakes in the early 2000's. This article admits US faults. But your "Tu Quoque" arguments are useless.

Here is what I want you to answer Tom:

I say the EU has been near completely unsucsessful in its foreign policy goals, and is increasingly impotent and dependent on America on the world stage. I say without the US, Europe would gradually become a political chew toy and an economic milk cow for the Chinese and Russians. I say Europe focuses on the third world because they know they have become too weak and inefficient to wrestle in their own weight class. I say Europe lives in an unsustainable economic bubble. What would you say to that, tom. Oh, I know, you would instinctively condemn America. Its what you want to do, isnt it Tom? I dont even care if you post a response to this. I just want you to think a little more openly. Oh, wait, now you want to say I need to think more openly, because thats how you think, Tom. All I want is for you to do is think critically. Can you do that, Tom