Libyan Intervention Exposes European Disunity

Posted on May 24, 2011

By William Pfaff

VIENNA—The European intervention in Libya has provided a needed practical demonstration of the European states’ ability to influence world affairs, while at the same time discrediting the expectation that the European Union itself can or will conduct a united foreign and security policy.

Austria, for example, still has the perceptions and habits of a neutral nation, appropriate to its post-1955 history, sentiments largely adopted by the Germans as well, despite persisting American and other NATO pressures upon Germany to serve as a permanent military auxiliary of the United States. The Germans and Austrians, and a good many other Europeans today, find the modern global role of the EU as an economic rather than political player a comfortable one, yet being unwilling themselves to wage war.

European governments launched the Libyan intervention, justified it, continue it and are now reinforcing it. The Royal Air Force has just sunk the entire Libyan navy, such as it was. It posed a threat to allied naval operations along the Mediterranean coast, so they sank it. The residential and command complex of Col. Gadhafi in Tripoli has been under repeated bombardment.

The French, whose air and naval intervention saved Benghazi from the Libyan army’s attack after the uprising first began some three months ago, now have committed a command and intervention ship carrying a dozen ground-attack helicopters intended to fight. British and French special forces have been on the ground in Libya for some time now, as intelligence and tactical advisers to the rebels, and as forward observers and target markers for the air forces in action. The helicopters will deploy their own ground-cooperation personnel.

This now has become a serious military operation for Britain, France and those other European and Arab nations that have chosen to join an effort that has overtly become a regime-change operation. The EU officially recognizes the legitimacy of the Transition Council that is now the political agent of the uprising, and has now opened an EU office in Benghazi. Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, visited Benghazi this week, the highest-ranking foreign official to have done so. Yet this is not an EU military operation, and no one in Europe planned it or knows where it will end.

After the French first intervened at Benghazi and the British backed them, the U.S. made a halfhearted if widely publicized effort to take over, but then backed off, continuing to employ some missiles and drones in support of the existing effort. NATO is supplying some logistical and technical support. President Obama’s political advisers and the Pentagon leadership had second thoughts about adding a third war in a Muslim country to the two from which the U.S. already seems incapable of disengagement. The American military also resists any new commitment that could put Americans “in harm’s way,” as press and politicians like to say. (Surely when people enlist, that’s part of the contract; at least it was when I was in the American army.)

This adventure should have fatal consequences for the European Commission’s determined effort to establish a strategically coherent common security and foreign policy. This produced an agreement 18 months ago in Lisbon, Portugal, to establish an EU foreign affairs office and diplomatic service to conduct what at the time was, and remains even now, a nonexistent common European foreign policy. This was like buying a hammer (a gold-plated one) when there is nothing to hammer, in the hope that the tool will create the project.

Such is a common bureaucratic assumption, which much experience confirms, that if you establish an institution it will invent for itself something to do. Nearly everyone at the Lisbon meeting, beyond a handful of enthusiasts, understood that there was no and would be no European foreign policy that possessed a strategic rationale and goal that went beyond the passive defense of Europe’s present well-being.

They ignored the reality that if the EU actually tried to put a European stamp on the world’s affairs, the U.S. would oppose it, and Europe’s most important and globally experienced members, France and Britain, would strangle it as an unwanted rival to their own national policies. The other 25 of the EU’s 27 members have always been unable and unwilling to support a unified policy that went beyond banalities of global cooperation and development, or a common defense against an invasion from Mars.

Implicitly acknowledging the pointlessness of the undertaking, they named as head of their new foreign policy institution and diplomatic service a woman previously holding a minor position in the British Labour Party, totally unknown to anyone else in Europe or the world. (This actually proved a serendipitous idea in that the most prominent candidate for the office was the egregious Tony Blair.) European politicians are already blaming the poor Baroness Ashton for Europe’s failure to stand tall in world affairs, but not even a reincarnated Winston Churchill could invent a coherent foreign policy for 27 nations.

That is the unacknowledged significance of what has happened.

Europeans can act in the world. But they inevitably will act through national institutions on national initiative. Other states may or may not join the “willing” leaders. The EU may or may not ratify what is done. Nonetheless, the Libyan intervention shows the way for Europe.

Visit William Pfaff’s website for more on his latest book, “The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy” (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

TAGS: austria barack obama britain europe european union foreign policy france germany government history libya military obama security uk war william pfaff

Related Entries

• 

  ‘Left, Right & Center’: The Democrats’ Private Equity Paradox

• 

  Say ‘Hi-Ho!’ as They Strip-Search You

• 

  Student Debt as a Human Rights Issue

• 

  Student Debt as a Human Rights Issue

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: A Medicare Moment for the GOP

Next item: America’s Mermaid

New and Improved Comments

We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.

In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.

Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.

Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.

Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.

By frecklefever, May 25, 2011 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment

NATO AND THE EU IS PREDICATED ON MUTUAL SECURITY AND
PROSPERITY….BUT HISTORY SHOWS THAT WARS READILY BECOME
BLACKHOLES AS A RESULT OF THESE MUTUALLY DEPENDANT
COMPACTS…THE ERO IS ON THIN ICE WITH SOME COUNTRIES WAVERING
ON ITS PERMANENCE…INTUITION SAYS ITS TOO FRACTURED BY EUROPES
HISTORY TO ENDURE…

Report this

By gerard, May 25, 2011 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

MacTurk:  Couple of questions, if you care to answer:

1. Roughly, what is the “balance of power” in war vs antiwar attitudes in Europe presently? How much influence does it have compared to the power of pro-military economic influences, jobs and otherwise?
2. To what extent is Russia still isolated from pan-European efforts for cooperation of any and all kinds? And how much of this isolation is Russia’s choice?

I’ll understand if you don’t want to take this on, because it’s a huge question.  Just that I feel
ignorant as I am not a specialist in international relations, and average Americans are pretty much isolated from international affairs at best. Thanks.
Please refer me to a source if that’s easier.

Report this

By MacTurk, May 25, 2011 at 2:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There has been an ongoing refusal by the larger nations in the EU to allow the development of any meaningful Common defense and Security Policy.  The British and the French do not want their freedom of action reduced, while the Germans are still in post-war mode, and simply do not want to know.  And so the EU remains a trade and economic giant, a diplomatic dwarf, and a military amoeba. 

Before complaining about the lack of a coherent response to the Libyan crisis, commenters should understand that the present lack of means reflects policy decisions taken, or not taken, over the last thirty years. It will take a lot of time to change this, and there is no consensus that any change is required.

Logicaslly, any military policy will have to involve Britain and France, as these are the only large nations with the required expedionary capibility.  However, the issue of command and control wil be an extremely difficult issue to resolve.

Lastly, Mr Pfaff’s statement that “..if the EU actually tried to put a European stamp on the world’s affairs, the U.S. would oppose it” is interesting.  How would the US oppose it?  If the EU did manage to approve and implement an integrated Defense policy, how, seriously would the US oppose it?  And would it be in its interests to do so?

The US spends a lot of time moaning that “Europe is not pulling its weight”, but the only way really for Europe to convert the current fragmented defense spending into anything useful is to have common doctrines and programs.

Report this

By THX 1133, May 24, 2011 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

gerard, May 24 at 10:09 pm
As I understand it (unless I am being naive), the
European Council is not NATO. Although of course
there’s bound to be an overlap in the armaments trade
and corporate power, which is the inconvenient
economic marriage of convenience we are stuck with
until enough people get sick and tired of wars—which
could happen.
===========================
I believe you are correct.
And your closing sentence; “until enough people get
sick and tired of wars—which could happen.”
Oh, wouldst that it could be true…

Report this

By gerard, May 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

As I understand it (unless I am being naive), the European Council is not NATO. Although of course there’s bound to be an overlap in the armaments trade and corporate power, which is the inconvenient economic marriage of convenience we are stuck with until enough people get sick and tired of wars—which could happen.

Report this

By THX 1133, May 24, 2011 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

If ever there was a Keystone Cops moment for NATO;
Libya is it.
If indeed this is an attempt at a humanitarian effort
and not a thinly veiled grab for oil; then as Gerard
says below, give it a chance.

Report this

By gerard, May 24, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Abject pessimism must be in style!  Pfaff joins the ranks with this statement regarding the new European Coommission’s nascent efforts to increase coopera-
tion among nations.
  He compares that effort (only a few years old) to being “like buying a hammer (a gold-plated one) when there is nothing to hammer, in the hope that the tool will create the project.”
  I beg to disagree:  What is “to be hammered” is an urgent need to increase cooperation and understanding among different European entities, and that as quickly as possible.  Ultimately, it means the defanging of nationalism—a very ancient and traditiono-bound way of doing business among fifteen or twenty disparate states, histories, systems and ethnicities.  A job that will take years but will ultimately occur—or else, curtains.
  Hammers are not needed so much as courage, patience and the building of common interests and procedures.  I read through the Statement of Purpose, and while it is (probably necessarily) abstract, it appears to be better than nothing specific around which to build consensus.  It’s trying to move in the direction the whole world is moving.  At least give it a chance until it does fail—if it does fail.

Report this