NATO and the European Union: Cooperation and security

NATO and the EU share a strategic partnership, face common security challenges and threats, are working together in key crisis management operations and are cooperating, inter alia, in the fight against terrorism, in the development of coherent and mutually reinforcing military capabilities and in civil emergency planning This presentation will focus on three main essential items of these strategic partnerships. Firstly we gave the broader perspective of the subject; secondly we talk about operations, thirdly about capabilities and finalize with a prospective approach to a possible future. duplication in a spirit of transparency, and always respecting the autonomy of the two organisations.

2007

The “European defense” project suffers from a number of limitations not just a lack of adequate resources but also conceptual flaws. It is not yet clear what fundamental common interests the EU members wish to pursue through the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and consequently through the defense instrument that should be made available by the end of 2003. This step would also help NATO better define its own missions, ensuring that the European allies enhance their contribution. The EU needs the equivalent of a “strategic concept”, which can be developed in parallel with the ongoing transformation of NATO.

The Berlin Plus agreement, established in 2002, has not been visibly seen in mainstream European security policy since the creation of Operation Althea in 2004. This agreement gave the EU access to NATOs planning, command and control, communications, and capabilities, for the operation of any EU-led operations, significantly bolstering the EUs security and defence capabilities. Despite two operations under this agreement launched, and one of which being still active, the package of agreements has faded from the European security debate into relative obscurity. Should the agreement therefore be declared missing, presumed dead? This study seeks to shed light on the Berlin Plus agreement, and establish what conditions led to its creation, and how do these compare to the current day. In this we seek to evaluate the Berlin Plus agreement’s overall relevance to the modern EU-NATO relationship. Alongside this question, we also explore the extent to which the EU has managed to meet the capability gaps that existed in its security and defence policy in 2002, and ultimately whether the EU needs NATO in the pursuit of any future CSDP operations. Using Resource Dependence Theory, we look at the relationship through a lens of material and symbolic resource exchange, creating levels of dependency between the two organisations, which lead to different strategies of dependency management. Furthermore, through interviews with actors in the EU-NATO relationship, we aim to provide a practical as well as theoretical approach. We find that Berlin Plus remains relevant primarily for the political bridging between the two organisations, with its operational relevance halted owing to political and strategic disagreements between Member States of the EU and NATO Allies. Through concerted capability generation the EU has managed to symbolically bridge many of the gaps that it had when Berlin Plus was signed, yet still cannot match the scale to which NATOs capabilities aided it in the creation of Operation Althea. Ultimately, whilst the political and military scope for NATO cooperation in CSDP missions has shrunk, the EU will need to rely on NATOs capabilities in the event of large scale and high-intensity missions. Our research has implications for both the operational relationship that currently exists between the EU and NATO, as well as existing unexplored avenues for further collaboration that exist.

This publication offers a wide panorama of issues, problems and challenges confronting NATO and the Euro-Atlantic community in the regional and global contexts. Russia’s aggressive stance at the international stage, the Ukraine crisis, the turmoil in the Middle East are the most notable examples of risks emerging outside the North Atlantic area yet strongly influencing NATO’s policy. The economic crisis, defense budget cuts, domestic issues and national problems in member states constitute additional factors weakening unity and identity of the Euro-Atlantic security community. As a result, NATO has to work out an appropriate response to the problems and challenges piling up within and outside the Euro-Atlantic area. Several authors in their contributions to this volume highlight the importance of readiness, reassurance and revitalisation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. They also point at the need for a reinforcement of NATO’s military capabilities and deterrence potential. All agree that NATO must show political unity and determination to cope effectively with the complex set of security issues and dilemmas. NATO’s policy should follow the path of credible and realistic collective efforts in order to be seen as a token of responsibility for protection and defense of the territory and population of the Euro-Atlantic community.

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?