RSS

NATO doctrine has changed more often in the past 20 years than during the 50 years of the Cold War period. Nowadays, NATO is operating outside of Europe: fighting in Afghanistan, stopping pirates in the Arabian Sea and helping bring peace in the Balkan region. The collapse of the USSR, and the rise of the European Union during the 90s means that NATO must develop new strategies to survive. The break up of Yugoslavia and the subsequent Balkan conflict raised the question of whether the European Union could handle conflicts in its own backyard. NATO's actions in the former Yugoslavia (with mostly US assets) and miscommunications between European and US leaders have given rise to the need for a European force which can be deployed in periods of conflict.

NATO needs a partner for its long-term strategy in Europe. This partnership would involve cooperation in military operations and crisis management. This cooperation will benefit both NATO and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) by closing the technological gap between them. Furthermore, more efficient management of EU armed forces will mean that troops can readily be deployed where needed.

The force will be further boosted by new defence purchases and interoperability. But, before this cooperation can work effectively, the ESDP must adapt its defence forces to 21^st century needs. It is obvious that since 2004 the European Union has grown in population (and in military capability) but its power has been reduced. The fact is that an increase in military personnel does not provide the European Union with a better and stronger army. In fact, the EU army is getting weaker and weaker. Nevertheless, there are actions that can be taken to solve these interconnected issues: 

• Partnership: The defense industry will continue to thrive as there will always be a need for security, to protect our country or to provide support in conflict time. Small countries and those relying on old equipment need to develop their defense systems. This cooperation would include countries with a defense industry which can help nations realise their needs. In other words, individual nations would take responsibility for differenct aspects of the defense requirements such as development, technology, manufacturing and delivery. This cooperation will create jobs in each participating country, stimulate the defense sector, and favour EU technology. The partnership will reduce the gap between the defense systems of the EU and the US at the same time as strengthening NATO.

• Market:  New Europeans countries need state of the art defense systems, but at a lower cost. The EU defense market is regulated by tons of heavy rules that means EU defense companies are not competitive with the US industry.  Encouraging EU countries to procure defense systems within Europe is necessary to provide ESDP with enough potential to compete.

• Industry:  Defense industries in Europe limited to a few countries. The lack of coordination among them provides an opportunity for US companies to fill the gap between them and get part of the EU defense market.   

• Interoperability: To make defense industry equal between European countries and the US, the European Union must make sure its modernisation of military assets meets the NATO standard. This implies technology sharing to ensure the best interoperability for NATO and ESDP.

• Spending: The European Union must spend more on Research and Development. There can be no modernization without spending. NATO members spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. To be more competitive and reduce the technical and technological gap, the European Union should directly spend 1.5 per cent of its GDP on military R&D, and a reserve of fund of 2 percent would be available from the EU budget. This reserve of fund would finance defense systems in the partnership program.

The European Defense Agency is slowly working on making the necessary changes to the European defense market and strategy, but the lack of real interest from some European members makes it difficult to realise this task. Added to this is the double language from Washington, which on one hand is supportive of ESDP, but on the other is still affirming NATO as a primary security organisation for Europe. Combined these issues make the ESDP even harder to promote.

Guillame Levy has completed his Masters at Curtin University of Technology on missile defense and its implications for Russia, the EU and NATO.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Luca Ratti: Realism: The Solution to Establishing a NATO-Russia Relationship
• Prosper Thuysbaert: NATO Alone Cannot Tackle Global Instability
• Ian Davis: Public Must Help Shape a Better, More Open NATO
  

July 21, 2009

ROBERTO GIANNELLA, LUISS GUIDO CARLI UNIVERSITY, ROME, (9)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

President Obama quickly realised that it is necessary to have international co–operation in order to achieve his policy objectives. It cannot be denied that the EU needs to contribute more seriously to face global security challenges, such as international terrorism. Nevertheless, Europe does not make the case for defence spending: on one hand the United States spends about 4% of its GDP on defense, on the other only one third of NATO’s members invest 2% of GDP. It would be wrong to argue that there is a transatlantic division of responsibilities, with the US taking the lead on hard security and Europe on soft power. The United States has finally realised that a unilateral approach is indeed wrong and counterproductive: NATO will be stronger only if the US and the EU cooperate side by side, being both more committed to the use of soft and hard power. The EU should stand on its own political feet and begin to think strategically at the same time, as it has been for too long an economic giant, but a political dwarf. It can be asserted that NATO played indeed an important role after September 11th, but definitely not a central one, because America’s unilateralism was indeed dominant. After 60 years from its establishment, the purpose of the alliance has dramatically changed. 1989 ended the Cold War, but it did not certainly mean the end of all threats. Another issue of great importance is that there should be less competition and more cooperation between the EU and the NATO: they actually worked side by side in Bosnia, whereas no dialogue seemed to take place over other matters, like Kosovo. There is reason to believe that NATO should plan its operations along with non–military bodies, such as the EU, but also the UN and NGOs, mainly because the 21st century has been so far characterized by threats, which cannot be labelled as issues of war and peace any longer, but rather matters of international security, such as terrorism. It would be a dreadful mistake to believe that NATO is redundant. However, the historic circumstances completely changed from 1949. Hence, NATO will succeed in facing today’s security challenges, only by restructuring itself and cooperating with other key–players in the international arena, such as the EU, Russia and the emerging Asian giants – India and China.

July 21, 2009

Wyatt Paul Lane, University of New Mexico, Silver Contributor (29)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree with Mr. Giannella's comments. While it is important that the EU be a willing partner with NATO and the U.S. in matters of security, it needn't spend on the level of the U.S. The U.S. understands security as a commodity and is willing to spend for that reason. What the U.S. can't afford is to continue to do everything alone, a circumstance that is as much if not more the result of unilateralism as it is unwillingness on the part of allies. But now unilateralism has been revealed as a unsound tactic, and primacy an unrealistic, and farcical grand strategy. So more willingness on the part of the EU is important moving forward.

Politically, NATO may face more difficult decisions today than ever before, as it continues to expand eastward into the Russian sphere of influence. Perhaps that issue can be a catalyst for inducing more leadership on the part of European countries. Eventually, security partnerships will need to be developed across the globe, to include Asian partners. Only with that kind of unified global will can the security challenges of this era be met and overcome. As it stands, the face of the global security provider (U.S.) is far too homogeneous and lacks the legitimacy needed to engage in another effort on the scale of the Iraq war, if that kind of action were indeed needed and were to have any chance of a favorable execution and conclusion.

July 23, 2009

Alexey Krasnov, London School of Economics , Bronze Contributor (21)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In response to Mr. Wyatt Paul Lane's concerns about NATO's expansion eastward, I have to say that the new US administration is not supportive of enlargement into the Russian 'Near Abroad' to the same extent as was the previous one. NATO-Russia Council is coming back to life as well as the Russo-American relations in general. As a result many European NATO partners, who were always unsure that the game of further enlargement was worth the security candle, are eventually able to breathe with relief (certainly, with an exception of new NATO members in Eastern Europe).

Moreover, with the war in Afghanistan being made a priority of the Obama administration, NATO is moving to the forefront of American interests, something that was largely absent during the Bush years (especially his first term). These two developments make it a good time for the Europeans to redefine their position within the Alliance and take on more responsibility or even leadership.

An important question to ask in this regard is 'Do they want to?' With the ESDP being initiated by one of the most Atlanticist member of the EU, the UK, with a warm welcome from France, as a remedy to transatlantic non-coordination during the Balkan crisis and the EU's general helplessness when it comes to security even on its own continent, the EU might well be more interested in promoting its own security project, sometimes at the expense of NATO. It is certainly true that many EU members are reluctant to engage in ESDP and will be more so if it begins to emerge as a rival organization to NATO, and that ESDP is concentrating on a different type of missions (crisis management, etc.), but the fact is that the EU-only missions are already taking place and that strong security dimension is the next logical step in the EU development. Therefore, I see the main challenge not in making the EU spend more on defence, or spend more wisely, or even become more interoperable, although all of these are important, but in making the Europeans to understand that NATO is an organization that has real potential and is worth working with.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org