Do European Union Defense Initiatives Threaten NATO (2001)

Key Points European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is now main item on Europe's security agenda because of a focus on establishing a crisis management force capable of acting independently of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Although transatlantic policies will be colored by issues such as Kyoto treaty, missile defenses, and relations with Russia, ESDP is likely to dominate debates as European Union (EU) tries to meet Helsinki Headline Goal of developing a corps-sized expeditionary force that can deploy military forces capable of ensuring diverse tasks and establish new political and military structures that will enable EU to guide and direct such operations. To meet Helsinki Goal, European Union must surmount three problems: ensuring sufficient forces, building confidence in quality of their performance, and finding substitutes for critical NATO assets. The approaches that EU members take to these tasks may indicate how serious they are about meeting goal in fact as well as in name. As Bush administration develops policies on transatlantic relations, it should move away from efforts to restrict EU development. The United States will benefit if EU states are more able and, even more importantly, willing to take responsibility for solving security problems without relying on U.S. involvement. The extent of European dependence on United States poses a greater threat to U.S. interests than what might develop if European Union becomes a more independent actor in policy. ********** Building a capacity for the eventual framing of a common policy which might in time lead to common defense has been a major European Union (EU) preoccupation since Maastricht Treaty in 1991. The Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 defined area for coordination as humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking (known as Petersburg Tasks). The project gained momentum after Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain and President Jacques Chirac of France agreed at St. Malo in 1998 that the Union must have capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises. The St. Malo summit agreement committed two leading military powers in Europe to building capabilities and institutional structures for a common defense. Britain's acceptance of an EU role facilitated consolidation of effort between European Union and Western European Union. By gaining an agreement that European efforts will remain intergovernmental--that is, coordinated among members in Council of Ministers rather than supranational European Commission--Britain was assured that it could prevent European Union from making decisions over British objections. The United States also benefited from St. Malo approach because it kept decisions (which require unanimous approval by member states) at a level that allows considerable U.S. influence. That agreement preserves America's ability to work bilaterally as well as multilaterally to ensure that EU choices are consistent with U.S. national interests. An enormous amount of work needed to translate St. Malo agreement into practice has been done in European Union and in national planning staffs to advance prospects for EU policy and capabilities. However, more work has been done to create an organizational structure than to improve forces to carry out mandate. New Structures The European Union has agreed on a decisionmaking process and created necessary supporting staffs. It established post of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy to advise council on issues and gave job to Javier Solana, former Secretary General of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). …