Summary: The Future of the Transatlantic Security Relationship
From Partners to Rivals?
Johannes Varvick
The relations between the EU and the USA have entered into a phase of fundamental reorientation, as both players are in the process of developing conflicting ideas regarding crucial questions of future international politics.
The Iraq crisis caused a deep divide that has developed into a fundamental crisis within the Atlantic Alliance, though both sides are eager to extenuate the bilateral relationship.
The basic conflict was sparked by the question of what extent of independence Europe should seek in security and defense policy matters. In 1998 former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that the United States would accept a more independent EU security policy, provided that a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) would not lead to decoupling the EU from the USA, unnecessary duplication of military capabilities and structures would be avoided, and non-EU NATO members would not be discriminated against.
In 2003 efforts to develop an ESDP were stepped up, resulting in three concrete ESDP operations, while at the same time disagreement within the EU over Iraq revealed the limits of a common European position in important strategic questions. In addition, the EU government conference that, for the time being, has failed to come up with a European constitution, demonstrated that within an enlarged EU the integration process is likely to slow down rather than pick up.
Europe and the United States disagree over established principles and values of the Western security community, which has lead to a world order conflict comprising three components: first, they differ in their understanding of how to deal with multilateral institutions and international human law agreements; second, they differ in their understanding of democracy and human rights and the appropriate means to implement them; and third there is the open question of how to deal with new security threats and what role military means should play in this context.
In principle there are three possibilities as to how the transatlantic security relationship might develop: (a) a two pillar alliance of equal rights, (b) an independent EU, and (c) a two pillar alliance in which NATO, and thereby the US, would have a kind a veto right. The second option would probably, in the intermediate or long term, lead to a break in transatlantic relations and gradually erode NATO. With the third option, minor conflict management and post-conflict measures would exclusively be left to the EU, while it would not get active in the field of collective defense. What would still need to be clarified in that case is the question about Washington’s say in the decision-making. The EU should, nevertheless, have the capabilities to conduct operations on its own, without depending on NATO assets and capabilities. A compromise arrangement, already discussed with the US, foresees that the EU would conduct missions covering the spectrum of the so-called Petersberg tasks, while NATO would be responsible for robust combat missions.
Europe’s critical stance toward the US and America’s problems with Europe are, at least in part, a consequence of Europe’s weakness and discord. In any case, the EU will have to improve its ability to pull on the same string, instead of complaining about US dominance. It would, therefore, be well advised to opt for standing shoulder to shoulder with the US, while simultaneously working out concepts to use its potential in terms of a sensible, multidimensional Foreign Security and Defense Policy and further develop them. To do so, without further decoupling the US from Europe, might become one of the crucial challenges of future alliance and integration policy.
Ihre Meinung/your opinion/votre opinion:
