LONDON: The European Union likes summits. Just look at the way it reacts when the other side decides not to show up (for example, its response to President Barack Obama’s decision not to attend the May EU-US summit in Madrid). If the EU wants to be taken seriously and have a tangible impact, it needs to learn that talking about the right things is no substitute for taking the right kind of action.
No policy area better illustrates this EU preference for talk over action than Pakistan. The Pakistan-EU summit will take place on April 10, a follow up to the first meeting last autumn. But you would be hard-pressed to know anything about the event, since nobody is taking ownership of it: not Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council’s new permanent president; not Catherine Ashton, the EU’s new foreign policy chief; not even Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, who has pushed Spain onto the stage in plenty of other areas.
The reason is simple: the EU has nothing new to say or offer. Pakistan desperately needs the EU’s vaunted expertise in police training. But any deployment of trainers is seen as too dangerous, expensive, and likely to fail. Instead, individual member states are going it alone, with their own bite-sized assistance projects.
The EU is equally unlikely to change dramatically its development-aid policies towards Pakistan. Questions of capacity, corruption, and quality assurance remain unanswered, and with the US granting $1.5 billion a year for five years, any change in the EU stance would be relatively insignificant.
There is also the question of President Asif Zardari’s government. Since his five-year term began in September 2008, Zardari has found it hard to assert his authority. Like his predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf, he is in danger of falling victim to a tide of anti-Americanism, fueled by disquiet over US policies in Pakistan, such as the use of military drones and covert operations.
Unlike Musharraf, Zardari cannot count on the support of the army, which remains Pakistan’s most powerful state institution. It has already reacted furiously to attempts to curb its powers and rein in the activities of its intelligence apparatus. Sensing Zardari’s weakness, his main rival, Nawaz Sharif, is said to be plotting a political comeback.
Given this context, the Pakistan-EU summit will come and go, with barely the caterers noticing. The EU will remain a minor player in Pakistan. Does this matter? Even the engaged US finds it difficult to attain its aims: witness the Pakistani interpretation of America’s $7.5 billion aid package as interference rather than goodwill. So why should the EU even bother?
There are perhaps three reasons. First, the EU needs to focus on Pakistan because terrorists in Pakistan focus on the EU. In its 2009 intelligence assessment (the TE-SAT Terrorism Situation and Trend Report), Europol concluded that “Pakistan [has] replaced Iraq as preferred destinations for volunteers wishing to engage in armed conflict. A senior EU official spelled out what this means: there had been “many cases in the recent past where either Pakistanis were coming to Europe or young EU citizens were going to Pakistan for training and being brainwashed.
An effective Pakistan policy would depend in part on changing US policy. But, in order to be taken seriously by the US, the EU needs to bring well-developed, well-resourced policies to the table, rather than 27 half-baked ideas. So a second reason for revamping the EU’s Pakistan policy is to be able to help shape US policy rather than be a passive by-stander.
The third reason is that, despite its aid and effort, the US is unlikely to be able to meet its aims alone. The US made Pakistan a top-priority Cold War ally. As a result, many unsavory aspects of Pakistan’s conduct went unchallenged by America, while its military and intelligence services were handsomely resourced.
This nurtured two types of anti-US sentiment. Ordinary Pakistanis hate the US because they believe that America supported years of oppression and military rule, while Pakistani elites are wary of anything that may undermine the position they have come to enjoy. The US, therefore, will never be seen as a constructive partner in Pakistan’s development. This leaves the door open to the EU, which is recognized as a consistent supporter of democracy.
There are many reasons to be wary of greater EU engagement in Pakistan, but foreign policy is not about easy problems; it is about addressing the difficult issues that affect people’s lives. Pakistan matters to Europe, and Europe could matter much more to Pakistan. If the EU wants to be a serious global player to which the US turns as a credible partner (showing up at its summits, for a start), the Pakistan-EU summit is a good opportunity to start replacing words with action.
Daniel Korski is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. This commentary is published by Daily News Egypt in collaboration with Project Syndicate, www.project-syndicate.org.
