Power structure limits Europe's options

The past month has been painful for the European Union as it has impotently watched crises flare in North Korea, Myanmar and Pakistan.

As North Korea exploded its second nuclear device, the Myanmar junta threatened to tighten the screws on pro-democracy activists and Pakistan wrestled with Taleban insurgents, the EU conferred with Russia, Asia and Southeast Asia.

The flabby, verbose outcome of these much-trumpeted meetings has driven home the sad truth that the EU is unable - and quite possibly unwilling - to project political power equal to its economic clout.

"The EU is allowing itself to be devoured by institutional squabbles and national rivalries, instead of focusing on its ability to transform its historical experience and economic weight into planetary influence," laments French historian Alain-Gerard Slama.

"Where's Europe?" the New York Times asked. On current performance, the EU's dream of being taken more seriously as a player in world affairs was "laughable", it suggested last week.

At the Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) in Hanoi, and at the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) in Phnom Penh, most of the 27 EU countries sent only junior ministers or even senior officials, flanked by the External Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who is seeing out the last few months in the job.

In contrast, China, Japan, South Korea and most of the Asian countries sent their foreign ministers.

This loss of face for the Europeans had a big impact on the meetings, according to sources there and press reports.

The EU could do no more than make verbal representations in support of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and lash North Korea for conducting a second nuclear test in defiance of world opinion.

Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, whose country has fared disastrously in its six-month tenure as EU president, refrained from identifying any repercussions if Suu Kyi, on trial for allegedly violating house arrest, was convicted.

He likewise agreed to water down a draft statement criticising North Korea, agreeing to soften the wording from "strongly" condemning Pyongyang to simply condemning it.

The EU yielded ground because of Asean's tradition of "non-interference" in Myanmar, which is an Asean member - but also because it was important not to upset China, North Korea's last big ally.

The EU has a population of nearly half a billion and a status as the world's biggest trade bloc, yet its traditional weakness as a political entity is well known.

Euro-federalists say the problem is an atomised EU structure, in which national politicians play to a domestic audience, weakening the centre.

"In the EU, success is nationalised and failure is Europeanised," observes Martin Schulz, a Social Democrat legislator in the European Parliament.

Another flaw for international clout is the EU's military weakness, for security remains a jealously guarded area of national sovereignty.

The idea of a federal European defence posture surfaces from time to time, most recently after the start of the Iraq War in 2003, when France and Germany fell out with Britain over support for the campaign unleashed by George W. Bush.

But the arrival of Barack Obama has restored the old tradition whereby Europe is content to shelter under the United States' military shield and not challenge the primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato).

These problems would be addressed - at least in part - if the proposed Lisbon Treaty to overhaul the EU's institutional structures takes effect, after it is ratified by all 27 member states.

A post-Lisbon EU would have a president who would be chosen for 2 years, as opposed to a six-month presidency rotated among the member states with widely varying effect.

It would also have a "high representative" for EU foreign affairs and security policy, and a single person would wield legal authority to represent the EU in negotiations. Approval by Ireland, which rejected Lisbon in a previous referendum, remains the biggest stumbling block for the treaty.

Eberhard Sandschneider, analyst with the German Council on Foreign Relations, says a tragedy is taking place in Europe.

"One need not succumb to the regularly returning Euro-scepticism to come to the sober conclusion that Europe is overextended, that it has no clear decision-making structures, that it is unable to build political consensus or act on basic issues of global policy," says Sandschneider.