Given the close proximity of the Middle East to Europe, which in theory, should offer a multitude of reasons to foster interdependence in many fields, it is, therefore, only to be expected that the EU have an interest to play an important role in helping the countries of the region overcome the crises and festering problems that have held back the region for so long.
With the advent last December of a new political leadership at the EU, there appears to be a heightened interest in an invigorated role on the world stage, particularly in the Middle East. This becomes all the more important because of the confusion reigning in US foreign policy. A fact that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Hopes are pinned on Europe to help solve the various crises that have plagued the region. Whether it is in Syria, Lebanon, Libya or Iran. The efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, however, have been monopolized, lately, by the US. With the talk of the “Deal of the Century”, Europe has all but, at least for now, totally conceded to the US. No possible European role can be envisaged until the US decides that it’s efforts have reached a dead end.
Regrettably, the EU has in the past focused its attention on short term rather than strategic interests. This has been largely due to domestic political reasons. The only exception is the JPCOA, but even that is now in jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s policies. Europe’s policies for the past years gave precedence to the issues of combatting terrorism, managing refugee inflows and securing access to energy. This took precedence over efforts at resolution of conflicts that are the underlying causes of instability. Europe merely contented itself with a policy of containment. Even when it comes to energy, Europe emphasized securing access to oil and gas, without help in creating a comprehensive framework of interdependence, which would include, among other matters, the issue of migration.
To reflect this heightened interest, reports have been produced in the last few weeks that dealt with how Europe can better engage in the Middle East to secure its long-term interests.
The European Council for Foreign Relations (ECFR), while acknowledging that despite Europe’s considerable economic and political partnerships with regional players, “it is has been unable to influence the major shifts that have taken place in the region” and “essentially is nowhere to be seen on the series of interlinked regional crises that have such a powerful impact on their interests”. It goes on to suggest how the EU can play a better role in securing its long-term interests. It is without question that Europe possess the political and diplomatic tools as well as the economic and financial resources that make it possible to play a role in help dealing with root causes of instability in the region.
The International Crisis Group (ICG), on the other hand, recommended that the newly appointed High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, focus the European Council’s attention on conflict prevention. But there are raging conflicts that deserve the urgent attention of Europe. They cannot be ignored. Four out of the seven priority areas designated by the ICG are in the region: Sudan, Libya, Iran and Syria. The others being: Venezuela, Bolivia and Ethiopia.
I have no doubt that the professionals, both at the EU, as well as in the foreign policy institutions in the various European countries, will respond positively to these recommendations. The question is whether European politicians will act on the them. It is here where disappointments may well lie.
After a series of interactions with European political and business elites, I have come to the conclusion that it is highly doubtful that Europe will take any serious and sustainable initiative towards resolution of conflicts in the Middle East in the near future.
There are a number reasons that lead me to this conclusion. First, Europe is suffering from a crisis in leadership. The German-French axis that has provided leadership in Europe is in abeyance for the time being. With Chancellor Merkel, practically a lame duck, President Macron on his own cannot provide the kind of leadership to address the threats and challenges Europe is facing.
Second, there is also a crisis in European institutions: with Brexit around the corner, the EU needs to concentrate on how to adapt to this new reality, and it also needs to deal with what appears to be an impending breakdown of the international trading system. This will take up the most efforts of the EU institutions.
Third, there are divisions among EU members on a variety of issues, both on the Middle East and beyond. On the Middle East, there are divergent views on Libya, Iran and Syria. Fourth, the EU is still incapable of decoupling from the US, especially when it comes to military matters. That is clear when it comes to Syria, but also on salvaging the JCPOA.
Fifth, at this point of time, and given the transition of the global international system, Europe is focused on what it believes are existential - security and economic - threats emanating primarily from Russia and China. European political elites are now focused on how to protect the political system from interference in elections and, maintain economic competitiveness by ensuring that they do not lag behind in artificial intelligence and G5 technology, both of which it believes are in jeopardy due to Russian and China’s policies.
Sixth, decision-making is further complicated by the fluidity in a political system resulting from the rise of nationalistic populist parties that are reshaping the political scene and may well lead to undermining the very foundations of liberal democracy in Europe. This is a direct consequence of the phenomena of migration and terrorism. Seventh, interestingly, what further complicates Europe’s reaction to such threats and challenges is the divergent positions taken by the political and economic elites. The former see a direct threat from China, whereas the latter take the position that they cannot afford to not cooperate with China if they want to maintain their future competitiveness.
In short, there are many reasons that curtail Europe’s ability to take, and then pursue, any serious or meaningful initiative in the Middle East for sometime to come. This, however, does not mean Europe is incapable of contributing to resolving and or preventing conflicts in the region. It is my view that Europe cannot but respond, actively and constructively, to any meaningful initiative in this regard. The question then is: from where does this initiative come? I believe that any initiative needs to come from within the region itself. Whether that is on Libya, Syria or Yemen.
In order to arrive at such an outcome, Arab countries need to agree on their common priorities, and present initiatives that can attract interest by major international players.
