EU’s growing role in the Middle East

It is common to talk about political earthquakes in the Middle East. Since January, the election of Hamas, the departure of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the abduction of Gilad Shalit and the ensuing war in Lebanon have all been described as such.

Amid these events, the EU’s actions in the region have rarely registered on the pundits’ seismographs.

But recently there have been two notable exceptions: the deployment of European troops to Lebanon and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana’s ongoing talks over Iran’s nuclear programme.

In both instances the EU has taken the diplomatic lead on an issue of global significance.

While Brussels-based diplomats admit that on the Lebanon crisis "the dice were cast in New York", Brussels is buzzing with talk of a new role for the EU in the Middle East.

"The geometry of power has changed in the Middle East," explained one EU policymaker, "the US is no longer the actor it once was."

Because of Iraq, Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the feeling is that the US has been discredited in the Middle East to such a degree that it is unable to act decisively.

Where the US once was prodded and cajoled into playing a leading role in the region, many now question whether high-profile US engagement is still desirable or even possible.

One non-European diplomat remarked: "You know the atmosphere here [in Brussels], only one superpower is now able to act in the Middle East and that is the EU."

That may be a hyperbole, but while the US has its hands tied, actors in the region are increasingly turning to the EU.

After years of favouring US involvement, Israel has, in recent weeks, showed a willingness to see the EU play a greater role.

"That is something new," said to one diplomat, referring to Israel’s efforts to convince the EU to engage with Syria and to provide the bulk of United Nations’ troops in southern Lebanon.

Diplomats from Europe and the Middle East alike argue that one turning point has been the success of the EU’s mission to monitor the border between Gaza and Egypt, proving the Union’s role as a security actor and boosting contacts with Israel’s military.

But elsewhere in the region the EU is finding platforms to become more assertive. Iran’s growing power has caused widespread concern, but with the US trapped in what one commentator has described as the "labyrinth of US-Iranian relations", the EU was the only suitable and available interlocutor for Tehran.

For both Iran and Syria the EU remains their best opportunity to avoid international isolation.

Whereas the EU may once have merely quibbled with US policy, diplomats say there is now a concerted effort for Europe to come up with its own solutions.

The decline of US influence "is just another reason why the EU should be more assertive", according to one senior EU official.

Concerned with the impact of cutting EU funding to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas’s electoral victory, the European Commission successfully created a mechanism to continue to transfer international funds, despite the ban on contacts with the Hamas-led government and despite reluctance in Washington. Many in the US capital had advocated waiting to see if Hamas crumbled, but in the end the mechanism was established and is now likely to be extended by the so-called Quartet - the EU, Russia, the UN?and the US - for another three months.

Diplomats warn that "you still cannot do anything against the US’s interests". But the focus is increasingly on pushing ahead while averting the US’ "active opposition".

The vital questions for the EU now are how can this leverage be used and how sustainable is it?

Forming a policy may itself be difficult without recourse to an EU foreign minister and with an increasing number of member states playing an active role in decision-making.

While the UK and France are weakened by ‘lame-duck’ premierships and are distrusted by Middle East countries because of their previous policies, new governments in Germany, Italy and Spain have emerged as powerful motors driving European foreign policy.

"What is interesting about the past couple of weeks is that what we have done in Lebanon or Iran has been unorthodox in institutional terms," said one senior member state diplomat, referring to the fact that the EU was able to take decisions and act quickly despite the lack of institutional structures or by interpreting these structures in a flexible way.

"It shows you the importance of political will," the diplomat added.

Whether or not the EU’s new-found assertiveness amounts to a political earthquake, will depend on how this political will is used.

It is common to talk about political earthquakes in the Middle East. Since January, the election of Hamas, the departure of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the abduction of Gilad Shalit and the ensuing war in Lebanon have all been described as such.