The EU Parliamentary Elections: A Transatlantic Perspective

The prevalent narrative decrying a lack of US Americans’ interest in the EU is only partly accurate. While public interest in the EU Parliamentary elections is indeed marginal, this lack of awareness is part of a much more sweeping foreign policy apathy. Frankly, there are not many foreign parliamentary elections US Americans follow closely: The past two months, for example, saw parliamentary elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq- both countries the US has been deeply entangled with over the past decade as a result of its long and costly military interventions. While a small but committed policy community pushed hard to put these watershed elections on the agenda, their success was rather limited.[1]

We Europeans, of course, have no reason to point fingers at the US American indifference to the upcoming general elections: While EU citizens’ interest in the EP elections seems to have declined even further since the 2009 elections, who can blame Americans for not caring too deeply about the upcoming vote?[2]

That said, Washington’s policy circles following EU politics are not as marginal as they may seem from the other side of the Atlantic. The EU’s institutional design, its elections or treaty changes are admittedly non-starters for the capital’s chatter and policy debates. Instead, conversations on the EU are typically driven by specific policy issues, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP), the implications of the NSA affair or the current crisis in Ukraine.

Given the city’s tendency to shift its attention from one foreign policy crisis to the next, one might actually interpret the modest interest in current EU affairs as a positive sign of stability according to the motto: “No news is good news”. The attention the looming rise of nationalist and right-wing parties has received in the media in recent weeks serves as an excellent case in point.

All in all, American appreciation for the EU and its institutional parts is much more conflicted than often portrayed. Whether the European Parliament specifically is perceived as a political partner, a potential obstacle, or merely a forum producing political white noise largely depends on two factors: First, the respondent’s political affiliation, with Democrats usually looking more favorable at the EU and its institutions. Secondly, the perceived relevance of the European Parliament largely depends on the subject matter discussed. Not surprisingly, and in accordance with its competences, the European Parliament is taken much more seriously as an institution that shapes policy outcome in the field of economy and trade rather than foreign policy.

Foreign policy is, however, currently the dominant issue that overshadows the EP elections in most EU-centered debates in Washington. Spreading like wildfire via social media, most commentators publically or privately rebuked Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland’s “Fuck the EU” remarks as unprofessional and not helpful. Nevertheless, her outburst struck a chord with a D.C. foreign policy community widely disenchanted with the EU as a geo-strategic actor. While Nuland went too far in her criticism towards the EU, her frustration towards its cumbersome foreign policy is well-understood in Washington.

The EU’s complicated decision- making mechanisms based on the principle of consensus are perceived to lead to a lack of efficiency, resoluteness and pace in critical moments of crisis. In recent weeks, the EU was deemed a “passive observer”[3], as “making no real effort to confront Russia over Ukraine”[4], and its sanctions were decried as "almost a joke" by Senator John McCain[5] (though, notably, his stance towards Ukraine is not generally representative of the US Senate).

Of course, the criticism towards the EU’s foreign policy runs deeper than the arguably slow and hesitant response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. For many years the US has pushed Europe to further develop its institutional capacities to respond to international crises. While the Lisbon Treaty was certainly a move in that direction, EU foreign policy is still largely perceived as divided and indecisive in Washington. Further, the always looming issue of fairer burden-sharing arrangements in the realm of international security is not just directed at Germany, but at Europe as a whole.

The fact that Obama has made his first ever presidential visit to Brussels in March 2014 is telling. At the same time, the current resurging interest on this side of the Atlantic in reviving the transatlantic partnership is underscored by the recent announcement of Obama’s return to Brussels in just a few weeks time.

US Americans by and large may not care much about the upcoming European elections. Inferring from that a general indifference towards the European Union or its Parliament, however, is a fallacy.

This analysis was written by Charlotte Beck, Program Director for Foreign & Security Policy at the Heinrich Böll Foundation North America.