How to Strengthen Alliance Cohesion

European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 2014

The United States and its European allies share a common commitment to global order, moderated by the quest of global justice. So long as the Soviet Union stationed its armies across central Europe, the overriding common interest of maintaining the security and freedom of Western Europe held the Atlantic Alliance together. Underneath this, however, interests (and perceptions of interests) had diverged from the 1960s onwards, as American security concerns focused more on Southeast Asia and the Persian Gulf, while European governments explored the possibilities of détente within their own region. Since 1990, different geopolitical positions have driven US and European interests apart. Different trends in energy dependence - and different understandings of climate change - have also shaped distinctive interests. Different levels of military capability in the projection of force have interacted with divergent understandings of the process of political, social and economic development, o...

Research Social Change, 2022

This study aims to analyse the evolution of the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the recent decades, particularly with the implementation of the EU's Common Security and defence Policy (CSDP). This study also aims to improve knowledge of the trends of different approaches in the EU about this relationship. Strengthening the cooperation in the field of security and defence is vital for the EU, considering the implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the current hostile international environment, with increasing geopolitical competition between the great powers.

The American Political Science Review, 1970

Acknowledgements tient of the innumerable kind people at NATO headquarters. Two hundred and twenty-one patient individuals consented to be interviewed. (68 Americans, 61 French, 45 Germans, 37 British, and 10 of other nationalities..) These included people at the NATO Secretariat, SHAPE, National Delegations to NATO, Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Ministries of Defense, and Em bassies; also Parliamentarians, retired military officers and diplo mats, trade union officials, representatives of trade associations and individual industries, and members of various research in stitutes. Among these were: Secretaries-General

Facing War: Rethinking Europe's Security and Defence, 2022

This chapter provides an overview of why and how NATO and the EU should strengthen their institutional partnership -- in the pursuit of greater synergy. Neither the bilateralisation of European security relations, nor the pursuit of farfetched ideas of 'strategic autonomy' can secure Europe under the current international conditions.

Rome, IAI, July 2018, 19 p. (Documenti IAI ; 18|18), 2018

In an ever-changing security environment, in which the boundaries between peace, crisis and war are becoming increasingly blurred, the task of projecting stability has acquired prominence on the agendas of both NATO and the EU. Given that, as of today, no international organization owns the tools, awareness and capabilities to assess, treat and ensure a stable environment, undoubtedly there is a need for greater NATO-EU cooperation in projecting stability, particularly in the case of what happens at the borders of Europe. Despite high-level declarations, policy coordination and cooperation between the two organizations remain highly problematic since the respective methods used and strategies adopted have rarely been compatible. The two international entities have usually walked on their own tracks, not succeeding to move from mere coordination to effective cooperation and harmonization of initiatives. Building on these considerations, the present paper aims at highlighting major shortfalls, lessons learned as well as challenges ahead for NATO-EU cooperation in projecting stability. Eventually, one has to identify what old issues make still sense and what new challenges have arisen to further improve NATO-EU cooperation.

The External Relations of the European Union Edited by Pascaline Winand, Andrea Benvenuti, Max Guderzo © 2015 Presses Interuniveritaires Européennes–Peter Lang An Ever Closer Alliance?: Transforming the EU-NATO Partnership Remy Davison Jean Monnet Chair in Politics and Economics Department of Politics & International Relations School of Social Sciences Monash University Rémy Davison completes this framework of analysis centred on the United States and its relations with Western Europe by proposing a well-structured approach in eight steps to the gradual transformation of the EU-NATO partnership since the end of the Cold War. The chapter looks at the way in which NATO belied most predictions and academic analy- ses in the 1990s by successfully setting in motion its own transformation from its previous role as a deterrent force to an “out-of-area” offensive military force. The author rightly identifies the first Gulf War as the start- ing point of this metamorphosis and the intervention in the Bosnian war as its full demonstration, through air strikes on Serbian forces and the subsequent peace-keeping role played by the alliance. Emphasizing the logical connection between those developments and the development of the Military Concept introduced at the 2002 Prague Summit, the chapter also explores the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States and its impli- cations for EU-NATO relations. Substantial sections of the essay are devoted to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Partnership Action Plans on Terrorism and the major challenges identified (and faced) by NATO in the period under review. The author also analyses the main ele- ments of collaboration and competition in the EU-NATO relationship, and interprets the roots of transatlantic divergence on specific issues. In this context, Davison not only mentions the American tolerance towards EU attempts to define its own security and defence policies, but also refers to Washington’s fundamental scepticism about the EU’s real readiness to offer front-line contributions in an independent or joint capacity. These remarks, which may go a long way to explaining why the US has been building ad hoc constellations of power within and without NATO for the last two decades, once again remind us of the complex dynamics of transatlantic relations, as well as of the EU’s tardiness in taking responsible roles in international affairs.

NATO Review, 2007

ALLIED BUT CLOSE? , 2016

This thesis aims to measure NATO alliance cohesion in an interval of [-1, +1] based on the affinity scores derived from United Nations General Assembly voting data. The thesis focuses on the dyadic scores of NATO members in order to generate a value of cohesiveness between pairs which indicate how alike they are in terms of votes they cast at the General Assembly. Current international developments from the Middle East to Eurasia and Asia make NATO one of the key actors once again. On the other hand, NATO faces inter-alliance disagreements about number of issues such as Syrian crisis, growing authoritarianism in some member states and fear of disintegration of Europe emerged with Brexit make the headlines if NATO is close to an end. Hence, thesis questions how close the member states to each other and if they can indeed make an “alliance”. The degree of cohesiveness obtained from data reveals how member states’ preferences are reflected in form of voting and helps to figure out if inter-alliance disaggrements or international crisis influence the states preferences and cohesiveness of the alliance. Apart from existing theoretical assumptions, this thesis brings a different approach for understanding NATO, its past, present, and the future.

NATO’s Post-Cold War Trajectory

Since the end of the Cold War, both NATO and the European Union (EU) have evolved along with Europe's changed strategic landscape. While NATO's collective defense guarantee remains at the core of the alliance, members have also sought to redefine its mission as new security challenges have emerged on Europe's periphery and beyond. At the same time, EU members have taken steps toward political integration with decisions to develop a common foreign policy and a defense arm to improve EU member states' abilities to manage security crises, such as those that engulfed the Balkans in the 1990s. The evolution of NATO and the EU, however, has generated some friction between the United States and several of its allies over the security responsibilities of the two organizations. U.S.-European differences center around threat assessment, defense institutions, and military capabilities. Successive U.S. administrations and the U.S. Congress have called for enhanced European defense capabilities to enable the allies to better share the security burden, and to ensure that NATO's post-Cold War mission embraces combating terrorism and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. policymakers, backed by Congress, support EU efforts to develop a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) provided that it remains tied to NATO and does not threaten the transatlantic relationship. Most EU member states support close NATO-EU links, but also view ESDP as a means to give themselves more options for dealing with future crises, especially in cases in which the United States may be reluctant to become involved. A minority of EU countries, spearheaded by France, continue to favor a more autonomous EU defense identity. This desire has been fueled further recently by disputes with the United States over how or whether to engage international institutions, such as the United Nations, on security matters and over the weight given to political versus military instruments in resolving international crises. This report addresses several questions central to the debate over European security and the future of the broader transatlantic relationship. These include What are the specific security missions of NATO and the European Union, and what is the appropriate relationship between the two organizations? What types of military forces are necessary for NATO's role in collective defense, and for the EU's role in crisis management? Are NATO and EU decision-making structures and procedures appropriate and compatible to ensure that there is an adequate and timely response to emerging threats? What is the proper balance between political and military tools for defending Europe and the United States from terrorism and weapons proliferation?

Countries presents a series of political benefits quite significant that will manifest in increased power and prestige of the World Union and in international negotiations. In political terms, it is of great interest to the Central European and Eastern countries are part of the organization that makes decisions affecting key parties Central, Eastern and Western Europe and the continent that has the economic and political weight to get into international negotiations... The arrival of new members, with its rich cultural heritage, will increase the diversity of the European Union. Therefore, the question to be answered is whether the extension of central and eastern countries in the European Union and in international organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization promotes greater cooperation between member states and consequently greater European integration that will create a world peace.