• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Fabrice Pothier"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Asia",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Europe: Losing and at a Loss?

The European Union’s Afghanistan policies are the result of two different and contradictory constituencies: the transatlantic one, consisting of the United States and its European interests, and, on the other end of the spectrum, local party activists, who view Afghanistan as an unnecessary and dangerous war.

Link Copied
By Fabrice Pothier
Published on Nov 9, 2009

Source: E!Sharp

Europe: Losing and at a Loss?The only thing new about the European Union’s strategy for Afghanistan released in October is its title.

It provides few additional resources and, eight years into the mission, continues to emphasise improved coordination, as opposed to focusing on clear and achievable goals. The EU has yet to develop anything even approaching a post-election political strategy with the US and the Afghan leadership, least of all one based on constitutional reform. Even the funding of a low-cost, but crucial and symbolic, Afghan civilian academy has been scrapped from the final plan. Last but not least, whilst acknowledging the terminal understaffing and under-resourcing of EUPOL, the EU’s police mission in Afghanistan, EU governments fail to give any concrete indication of how they intend to fix it.

When you talk privately to officials in Brussels and other European capitals, their shrugs suggest the EU is giving up any hope of making a difference in Afghanistan. Afghan strategy has been on auto-pilot for years. But now European governments are stuck between the lack of will for further commitment and the lack of courage to start calling for an exit.

This contrasts starkly with the debate that has raged in and around the new US administration. Following the military and civilian surge launched by President Obama in spring 2009, Europe is receding into the background in Afghanistan. Today, European countries contribute less than a third of the combat forces in the country and their civilian presence is paltry in comparison to the thousands of experts Washington has deployed. There is much complaint about the US training scheme for Afghan police, which, according to EU officials, trains police for counter-insurgency missions instead of more traditional civilian security work. But with Europe still struggling to provide the missing 200 police trainers for its own training mission, its concerns carry little weight in Washington.

The contention in European capitals is that public support has been lost, depriving leaders of the precious political oxygen needed to sustain a long commitment. Countless surveys show that a majority of European voters feel that the mission in Afghanistan is failing and are opposed to any additional troop deployments. A Pew Global Attitudes Survey in August showed public opinion in Britain not far from that of traditionally pacifist Germany, with 51 and 63 percent of their respective populations opposing further troop deployments. A recent BBC poll put British opposition to the military mission at 56 percent.

The reality though is that public opinion is a convenient truth for European governments to hide behind. Afghanistan is hardly a priority for most Europeans, and officials are unlikely to be voted out of office over a distant war. The key issues for voters are the same as they have always been: unemployment, the cost of living and the economy.

European leaders are pulled between different and contradictory constituencies: the transatlantic one where, out of solidarity, they followed the US into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks; and, on the other end of the spectrum, local party activists, who view Afghanistan as an unnecessary and dangerous war. This partly explains the schizophrenic Afghan policy of many European governments, especially in parliamentary democracies like Germany and Italy, where party politics often hijack foreign policy agendas. Whilst most European governments have committed more troops to Afghanistan than in any recent theatre since the launch of European security and defence policy ten years ago, they have placed, with few exceptions, considerable limits on the mandate of those troops. This approach worked as long as the situation in Afghanistan was relatively stable and the US was following its own hollow course. But now that those two factors have fundamentally changed, Europe finds itself stuck with a Janus policy.

The open secret is that both the US and Europe are on course to fail in Afghanistan. By adopting a wait-and-see strategy, Europe is missing the last real opportunity it has to influence events in Washington and in Kabul, and to establish its relevance in confronting the challenges of failed states.

This article first appeared in E!Sharp as part of a series of special reports designed to raise the debate in Europe on Afghanistan and the broader crisis gripping south Asia.

About the Author

Fabrice Pothier

Former Director, Carnegie Europe

Pothier, director of Carnegie Europe, is a noted commentator on European policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, transatlantic issues, and global drug policy.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Can Macron Reload the Minsk Process?

      Fabrice Pothier

  • Q&A
    Where's Europe?

      Fabrice Pothier

Fabrice Pothier
Former Director, Carnegie Europe
Fabrice Pothier
Foreign PolicyAsiaEurope

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    China Financial Markets
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

    China’s banking crisis in the 2000s was resolved by transferring the costs to households through financial repression—a decision that recapitalized the banks while exacerbating the structural imbalances that continue to shape the Chinese economy today.

      Michael Pettis

  • Robot arm with disposable test tube virus sampling in laboratory
    Commentary
    Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. Sanctions

    Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.

      Xue Gong

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    China Sells Stability Amid American Volatility

    U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.

      Chong Ja Ian

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.