Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

August 31, 2009 |  7 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

AfPak: Europe's Politicians Lack the Support of Public Opinion

Raffaello Pantucci: Greater coordination on Central-South Asia would be a boon to European and US interests in the region. Unfortunately, such coordination is still lacking and we are unlikely to see a greater push from the EU. More European involvement in any sort of “civilian surge” would be welcome, but will be unrealistic until the security situation is stabilized.

European perspectives on AfPak are at a very different stage to those of the United States, and there are two reasons for this. The EU is currently not yet adept at dealing with hard security matters, and the security concerns that emerge in this region are seen in starkly different lights by politicians and public opinion across the European Union. And the former situation is unlikely to improve until the latter is tackled through greater coordination between EU member states, and it is on this that European leaders should now focus their efforts.

Developments in AfPak are presented in a variety of different ways across Europe. For the UK, there is the palpable sense of an immediate terrorist threat posed by plots directed from the region, and that is generally accepted by the general public as the reason why British troops are fighting in Afghanistan. That's not to say there isn't heated discussion in the UK, but rather that it is focused on tactics and on whether following America's lead is the right way to deal with things. In Germany and Spain by contrast, both of which have faced plots directed from groups based in the region, the war in Afghanistan is instead sold as a distant peacekeeping operation. A large proportion of the German public thinks their troops should not be there at all, believing that it is their presence that is attracting trouble to Germany and choosing to ignore the fact that the threat emanating from the region was present before German forces went in there. In between, Europeans hold a wide range of views and opinions, of which most tend towards the view that whatever is going on in AfPak is not directly relevant to their own security.

European leaders, meanwhile, appear for the most part to line up behind the US, having reached the conclusion that ongoing instability in the region poses a threat to both regional and international security. Unlike their own public opinions, they tend to appreciate the nature of the AfPak threat and therefore understand why European troops need to be there.

The gulf of understanding between Europe's political leaders and European voters is at the root of the problem of getting EU countries to take on a bigger role in AfPak, and is also responsible for NATO's inability to get more European boots on the ground there. The decision to hold an EU-Pakistan summit with a particular focus on security is a welcome move, as is the Commission's decision to focus more of its aid spending in Pakistan on security and combating extremism. But none of this will help with the public relations deficit at home. European leaders have for the most part made little or no effort to sell their reasons for being involved in the region to their domestic audiences, being clearly fearful of negative political consequences.

A number of European capitals need to reach serious decisions about what they see as their own motives for being involved in AfPak, assuming that they conclude that stability there is vital. And that means making a much greater public outreach effort to ensure that public opinion in their country is also on board. The UK government has already made precisely this sort of outreach effort to explain its foreign policy to a domestic audience, and it is the sort of effort that should be paralleled across Europe. Doing so may lead to some awkward conversations for some of the EU's national leaders, but until it is done European efforts in the region will remain stymied, leading not just to possible security threats at home but as Shada Islam rightly points out, the possible souring of transatlantic relations.

Raffaello Pantucci is a Consulting Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. This article was first published in Europe's World.

Related Materials from Atlantic-Community:

  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | AfPak | Europe | US | Statebuilding | Pakistan | ISAF | NATO |
 
Comments
Marek  Swierczynski

August 31, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Paralels between Iraq and AfPak situation are evident. Just as there was little debate between govenrments and the public when president Bush was gathering "the largest coalition ever built", which was to "smoke out" OBL from Afghanistan and then turned against Saddam Hussein who was of course a great danger to the free world, this time again there was little debate or none about why NATO countries must be there in Afghanistan and what is the overall goal of operation ISAF. Tony Blair used to say that it's because the "drugs sold on our streets are made in Afghanistan" and Jaap de Hoop Schaeffer followed suit by constructing a unique interpretation of NATO doctrine in which its mandate territory expanded as broad as potential threats went. And the public - or I should say the media - were not quite ready to challenge that. In countries where there's no immigrants from AfPak region, little understanding of global issues and little tradition of democratic debate - like my own - the issue was only debated in terms of loyalty to NATO, the US and "international community". In case of Poland, the surge of troops on ISAF mission (from a hudred to 20 hundred) was clearly linked to the "missile defence" project and the public accepted it as an investment in the larger security scheme (we're sending troops to a distant war theatre and we're "dying for Kabul", but the Yanks will come soon with their mighty Patriots and kill-vehicles and deliver us from evil in the Kremlin). Again, the picture was painted in such bright colors that voices of criticism were treated almost like traitors and initially banned from state-controlled media under the Kaczynski's rule. I realise Poland might have been an extreme case and certainly it was, but haven't we all suffered a mental blackout for a period of time? Wasn't the "war on terror" powerful enough to blind us? Just recently someone pointed out that this "war on terror" is lasting longer than I and II world wars of the XXth century altogether... Time to rethink?
 
Donald  Stadler

September 1, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I would caution those who assume the split between public opinion and governments exists only in Europe - to think again.

The assumption that the events surrounding the period after 9/11 and during the Kosovo War affect only public opinion in Europe is an erroneous one, I think. US committment to NATO was tested in 1997; and the centre held. Nonetheless Kosovo was greatly disillusioning from from a US perspective, while the public respnse in Europe to both Iraq and Afghanistan - speaks for itself.

Eyes have been opened, but US public opinion has not been tested since the great disillusionment. Yet.

I would not rely upon US public opinion if I were a central European. The suprise will be as great as the one you sprung upon the US.
 
Jan-Friedrich  Kallmorgen

September 2, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think Raffaelo's analysis is exactly on point - European leaders have so far failed to communicate the reason why we are in Afghanistan, let alone Pakistan, in a coherent fashion. While there are PR campaigns - and budgets - to explain all kinds of policy measures (from taxes to education to energy friendly light bulbs) neither the EU member states nor the EU, nor the US has developed a communication strategy to convince their home audience that we need to stabilise the region until the Afghanis are able to do themselves.

My suggestion: Public Diplomacy experts from all ISAF countries should come together and pull their resources together to launch such a campaign, which will be long term and not cheap and needs to include all media from newspapers to online communities. And there are enough arguments to stay in Afghanistan, one just has to read through the sites of Atlantic-Community.org.

If communication towards the population is not seriously beefed up and the death toll continues to increase, as it will, EU and US leaders will wake up one morning from the shouting of protesters demanding immediate troop withdrawal. Under such public pressure it will be hard for any policy makers to stick to the course in Afghanistan and the Taliban will win.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

September 2, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
If there really were "enough arguments to stay in Afghanistan" and if they were as easily available as by reading this forum, I guess the leaders would have found some budgets to communicate them to their respective electorates. What I fear is that the situation is precisely the opposite: there are not enough arguments to stay in Afghanistan and the lack of open debate on the ISAF role is deliberate. Before pulling resources to communicate why should we stay there, I would argue it's worth debating whether do we have to stay there at all and what should be achieved to conclude we've reached our goals.
 
Donald  Stadler

September 2, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"nor the US has developed a communication strategy to convince their home audience"

Hmmm, I'm not so sure of that in the case of the US. On the face of it this is true, because I don't believe that any 'communication strategy' had much effect upon public attitudes in this area. Sometimes the facts just speak for themselves. When someone drops a war on you it matters little whether it is 'popular' or not.

The US public is obviously not happy about what is going on in Afghanistan. But that unhappiness takes a variety of forms, some of which have less to do with Afghanistan than other factors.

Most of Europe obviously believes that active involvement in NATO is optional, and that is the crux of the matter I think. Or one of them anyway. That is also a big isue in the US. Many who were formerly stalwart NATO supporters now hold strong doubts about mutual committment within NATO. Or worse than that....
 
Marek  Swierczynski

September 4, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As if prompted by this debate, there's an interesting development in the UK. A parliamentary assistant to defence secretary has resigned, questioning both the level, time-span and aims of the British involvement in Afghanistan in a publicised letter to Gordon Brown. This may be of course a smoke-screen to hide what is really behind this departure, but nevertheless, it's not the only signal from the UK that the largest European contributor to ISAF is in growing doubt about the mission.
Tags: | UK | Afghanistan |
 
Ilyas M. Mohsin

September 5, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Pantucci has nicely summed up the ambivalence of the EU vis-à-vis the US policy in Af-pak. This involves 3 aspects. First, as per the writer, there is a growing disconnect between public leaders and the public itself about EU’ military involvement in the quagmire. Second, while the EU leaders are agreeable with the US in conferences etc, they find it impolitic to espouse the same cause openly among their electorate. Third, the US feels disappointed with the stance of the leaders and a
disappointment is reflected in the statements on the subject by the leaders of the Obama Administration, like its predecessor, as well as major political figures.
The EU public like their counterparts in the US, as Robert Fisk has explained repeatedly, tend, generally, to ignore whatever
sufferings etc are caused to those at the receiving end. It hurts them more so when it costs them money or men. However, it goes to the credit of the British that while Tony Blair was selling his soul to the ‘WMD’ fraud in Iraq to cultivate George W, the public disapproved of the same vociferously. Lately they are waking up to the worsening ground realities in Afghanistan and making Gordon Brown sweat quite a bit. Apparently, UK forces in the field are awaiting the announcement of the ‘new strategy’ while avoiding real battle. So August ended up as the worst month for US troops who took 51 dead home besides about 6 times that number as DI.
In the last 8 years Af-Pak has been subjected to merciless bombings killing innocent civilians assuming that they are all ‘bad guys’ like in a videogame so popular with the American children. The US, generally, could not care less about the same but the British know the history after having suffered in the ‘great game’ of yore. Lately Gen McChrystal appears to be conscious of what the US has been sowing for the last 8 years. However, the latest tragic incident killing 9o persons and dangerously injuring many more in Kunduz/North Afghanistan by NATO air-command shows the disarray among the ‘foreign forces.’ This would not bode well for the US and her allies including Pakistan as the Pashtun does not forego revenge except as per the traditional framework.
It is a real catch-22 for us all. While the US finds private army like Black water to perform the worst atrocities through ‘out-sourcing’, the others can’t afford to do such things. So even without dramatizing the danger, we have to put up a fight in the interest of the world/regional peace. No doubt the major beneficiary will be the US out of an honourable settlement, if and when one is made, by way of access to Caspian Sea resources etc yet others also have an indirect stake. For US NATO is no more an alliance against the cold-war enemies; it covers the whole world. Schaffer, the last Scety Gen, always endorsed this position though the public at large is wary.
The best way out appears to be to, as President Obama stresses, to try diplomacy, human concern for all those who are suffering and use of power in self-defense. Using air-power against those who have no access to the same appears to be an atrocity and if the UN was not dead, this question would have been raised at some stage. To make the best of a bad bargain, let us stay the course despite ifs and butts like Pakistan is doing even without getting substantial help from EU. The help to the 3 million IDP is, as yet, a matter of conjectures. US/EU must pool resources to create a viable mechanism in conjunction with Pakistan Govt and people with known integrity to ensure that Rehabilitation proceeds smoothly. If the IDP get the impression of having been subjected to a short shrift, we could be gifting most of them to the ‘Taliban’.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website