THE European Union has allocated one billion euro to Afghanistan since the 2001 US-led invasion. It provides over two-thirds of the 10,000 peacekeepers in Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). Nearly half the cost of September’s parliamentary elections, seen as a democratic milestone, was met from EU funds.

But, despite its efforts, the EU lacks collective clout and a coherent policy in Afghanistan, a new report said on Friday. And it is ill-prepared to take on larger political, reconstruction and security responsibilities that will be required next year as the US begins to scale back its military commitment. That conclusion is particularly worrying for Britain, which takes command of Isaf next spring. It is to deploy up to 4,000 additional troops, half of them to southern Helmand province, at a time of intensifying violence, a Taliban resurgence and Al-Qaeda-linked suicide bombings.

“How the multinational force functions when countries have different rules of engagement is a real difficulty,” said David Drew MP, who recently returned from Afghanistan. “The Americans can’t do peacekeeping and the Europeans won’t. Britain needs help in the south and with counter-narcotics.”

“We believe there will be a 3,000-5,000 reduction in US troops next year,” said Dai Havard MP, a member of the defence select committee. “The US is very clearly telling Nato, and the EU element of Nato, to step up and do your part.”

A Nato meeting next week will attempt to finalise contributions to an expanded 16,000-strong Isaf force. But many EU countries worry their troops will be sucked into war-fighting. In the Netherlands domestic opposition has cast doubt over plans to send 1,100 extra troops to the south. A decision is due soon. Partly as a result, Britain is looking to Canada, Australia and New Zealand for support. “Isaf’s effectiveness has been adversely impacted by national caveats on functions and acceptance of risk. Many troops are based in the safest areas of the country instead of where they are most needed,” the report by the independent International Crisis Group said. “As Isaf embarks ... into the more dangerous south, only a few EU states appear prepared to commit troops.”

The ICG’s Joanna Nathan also highlighted problems with civil-military units known as provincial reconstruction teams (PRT), eight of which are led by EU states. Each PRT had its own ideas about what it was supposed to do — and some achieved very little, she suggested. The British PRT in Mazar-i-Sharif focused on security “in an area of considerable factional animosity” while the Italians in Herat stressed “cultural interaction”.

‘All the PRTs are surreally different. National caveats are crippling inter-operability. This has given rise to the phrase ‘peacekeeping tourism’,” Ms Nathan said. The PRTs should prioritise security and stabilisation. Afghanistan’s situation remained “extremely fragile”. But the EU’s nation-building efforts were handicapped by a lack of policy coordination between members and between the EU and Nato; and by its resulting inability, relative to the US, to influence the Afghan political process, corruption and human rights issues, the report said

“The EU must be more assertive,” said Emma Bonino, a former EU commissioner. “Europe will be involved in Afghanistan for many more years — not just two or three years. This has to be made clear to European public opinion. We have to be transparent about this.”—Dawn/The Guardian News Service