Why Isn't Europe Playing a More Important Role in the World?

Peter Brownfeld

Peter Brownfeld works at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

The European Union is one of the world's modern miracles. From the days of the Spanish Armada, to the Prussian militarism of last century, Europe has almost never been free of war. Yet now strife between the states of the EU is almost unthinkable. European Commission president Romano Prodi recently recognized this: in Europe, he said, "the rule of law has replaced the crude interplay of power."

Europe has learned a valuable lesson that it should teach the war-torn nations of Africa, and the countries struggling to implement effective democracy in Latin America.

The EU, however, finds itself in a position of impotence, unable to spread its message of democratic cooperation among nation states. It is widely ignored on the issues it holds most dear, such as National Missile Defense, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the International Criminal Court.

Why is this? The European Union is more populous than the United States and has a similar GDP. It includes nations with vast diplomatic and military experience. Western civilization originated in Italy and Greece. Europe, in short, is a natural locus of power.

This ineffectiveness is certainly not due to a lack of desire for international prominence. European leaders often pontificate about a more significant European world role. Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moller, whose nation took over the EU presidency on July 1st, said: The European Union has "long been an economic heavyweight. Politically, however, our punch is below our potential." British prime minister Tony Blair said that by pooling sovereignty, "Europe can, in its economic and political strength, be a superpower . . ." Other prominent Europeans such as Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Helmut Kohl, and Jacques Delors also want a more influential Europe.

Despite this desire, Europe is relegated to the margins of world affairs. Time and again Europe has shown that it is not ready to play a major role on the world stage.

Because of a lack of military capabilities and political will, European handling of the Balkan crisis in the early 1990s led to the further massacre of innocents. After America led the mission, a common European description of the military division of labor became the Americans are "making the dinner" and the Europeans are "doing the dishes."

Several months ago the European Union, enraged by what it perceived as American inaction in the Middle East, told the United States to act or step aside. The EU promptly found it had no voice.

It is not only in these conflicts on the EU's borders that European impotence is revealed. The Europeans are almost entirely powerless on some of the issues that they are most passionate about. Consider the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, strategic defense initiative, international criminal court, etc. It is hard to see where the Europeans have made their voice heard.

It is no mystery why European diplomacy is so weak. As Josef Stalin once remarked, the pope's voice in world affairs is muted because of his number of military divisions. Likewise, the Europeans are unable to back up their diplomacy with force. Their foreign policy strength is also stunted by the lack of unitary vision on many issues. But even when Europe speaks with one voice, its message is not heard because it lacks the necessary military microphone.

In this Hobbesian world, it is power that counts. Prodi recognizes this, saying the EU "must build its own army or risk being marginalized in the new world history." Chris Patten, the EU external affairs commissioner, complains that this exclusion is already happening: "America's overwhelming pre-eminence has generated increasing pressure within the U.S. to abandon her internationalist past in favor of an unapologetic pursuit of national interest."

Currently European military capabilities are embarrassing. They spend little, and the money they spend is largely wasted. While America spends $347 billion on defense, Europe spends just $140 billion. Additionally, much of this money is wasted on conscript armies and politically driven military projects, such as joint construction of weaponry by several European countries.

Increased European military capacity will amplify its voice. It will make it a true partner of the United States, not just a nominal one. It would restore a certain level of prestige to national as well as EU diplomacies. However, a European army, if it were to ever exist, is in the distant future. Individual European nations should follow the British model of a small, but professional and effective military able to be rapidly deployed.

The EU and many leaders of the European states dream of a world they can shape the way they shaped their own continent. The European Union should try to mold the world in such a way by taking its ideals and putting some teeth behind them. It should become a defender of human rights. The nations of Europe should send in forces to stop massacres. Europe should teach other continents what it has learned of reconciliation. After all, what greater story of reconciliation is there than the Franco-German one?

These countries created and survived the hellish cauldron of World War II. They emerged as freedom-loving nations. They have an important message about the success of democracy and how to live without conflict. But they are not broadcasting it.

The European Union has learned many valuable messages from the horrors it inflicted on itself last century. In a world where terrorism seems to be growing, where disease and poverty are rife in Africa, and where many nations have been unable to set up effective democracies, having the EU join America as a major power on the world stage can only be a positive development. America and the nations of Europe can do much good together. Hopefully the European Union will rise to the challenge, teach important lessons, and take on the difficult role of a world leader.