The European Union is the most successful multinational organization in history, with decades of achievements in promoting trade, a currency union (the euro), freedom of movement, and the peaceful resolution of disagreements. This latter point, the development of consensus-based decision-making in a region -- Western and Central Europe -- previously plagued by centuries of war and violence, is the most remarkable.

However, the same process, developed over decades to accommodate the Great European powers without trammeling on the smaller states, is often maddeningly slow to those calling for swift European action.

Whether in dealing with the current Mediterranean refugee crisis, fighting Islamic radicalism in Europe and elsewhere, confronting Russian aggression in Ukraine, creating a rapid-reaction force, or renegotiating an economic settlement with Greece, a relationship that veers from tragedy to comedy depending on the moment, one is tempted to accept that the irresolution of the EU is a feature, and not a bug. The United States, rather than complaining of slow and incomplete policy-making in Europe, however, should welcome it. The EU as currently organized will never lead the world in the resolution of major global problems, but that is not entirely unfortunate.

Indeed, from the emergence of strong monarchies in the 16th century until the devastation of the Second World War, Europe was filled with decisive, action-focused leaders. From kings such as Phillip II of Spain, who launched the ill-fated Spanish Armada, to the Prime Ministers and Emperors that rushed into war in 1914, to the dictators of the 1930s that embraced conflict, Europe has had its share of unilateralism. European nations conquered much of the world, establishing vast colonial empires, and exploiting the people, land and resources of these places for the exclusive benefit of the conquering powers.

Nations such as France, Sweden, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, now considered humane, generous and civilized, once ruled with remarkable brutality over indigenous populations, dispatching armies and mercenaries across Europe and the world, bringing death, destruction and fear.

In the aftermath of World War II, however, European leaders took a different path. Exhausted after two world wars and centuries of overseas warfare, and reluctant to commit new generations to more violence, Europe moved toward multinational, and supranational, collaboration. What became the European Union officially in 1993 began modestly in the 1950s with agreements on coal and steel, gradually expanding to a single market and overarching political system from the Atlantic to Eastern Europe.

The greatest sacrifice made by the European states in this process was their national sovereignty, yielded to the institutions of the EU: the European Parliament, European Commission, European Court of Justice, European Central Bank, and so on.

From its beginnings as an economic association, the EU has been slow to create a united foreign policy. Deep divisions over global events, from the 2003 Iraq War to the 2014 annexation of the Crimea by Russia, reveal the challenges inherent in acting in a cohesive manner. Two EU members -- the U.K. and France -- control the only significant military forces capable of major combat operations outside Europe -- and are reluctant to yield authority to their EU comrades.

Regional differences play a role in this lack of cohesion, as well. Poland and the Baltic States most worry about Russian aggression; Italy is paralyzed in the midst of an immigration crisis; France is focused on maintaining its role as a great power; and Germany is concerned about the eventual financial cost of any entanglements. The result is a slow-moving foreign policy by the EU, which most typically produces vague statements, incomplete resolutions, and compromises that please no one. Even the title of the EU's chief diplomat gives a sense of this complicated state: "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." Some nations make decisions before the Europeans finish introducing everyone at the table, in the 24 official languages of the EU.

These conditions are actually positive for the United States, however. The EU is larger, richer, and potentially far more powerful than the U.S. If the member nations acted more like U.S. states, yielding all foreign and defense polices to a central authority, their global dominance would exist everywhere they chose to exert it.

With the current divisions within the EU, the U.S. can work with individual states, such as the UK and France, on immediate crises, without having to wait for the ponderous European system to develop a consensus.

Rather than pushing the Europeans to develop more rapid decision-making processes, the US should welcome the current EU system. While the delays inherent can be frustrating, as American diplomats try to gain commitments from European leaders in Brussels, Strasbourg, and wherever the latest High Representative resides, the alternative -- a robust EU, that may or may not agree with the U.S. on major global events -- could be even more problematic. The deliberately structured and certain ambiguity of foreign policy decisions in the EU is far preferable to swift resolve and immediate action. Centuries of history demonstrate what results from Europeans acting quickly, and without concern for the interests of other nations, including the United States.

Wayne Bowen, a U.S. Army veteran, received his Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. He lives in Cape Girardeau.