NATO Leaders meet for the traditional 'family' photo at Chicago’s

Soldier Field: With defense budgets shrinking and threats that

appear to be expanding, can NATO remain relevant?

 

 

Dire Straits for Europe Absent Less Nationalism and More Cooperation: Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland

 

“Without a strong military capability, E.U. diplomacy will be far less effective, and individual member states - even the larger ones - will find that they are too small to count on the international stage. … A new E.U. security pact should allow for the strengthening of Europe’s defense identity … and as a result, address self-interest and nationalism and all that this entails.”

 

By Jacek Saryusz-Wolski*

                                             

 

Translated By Halszka Czarnocka

 

May 20, 2012

 

Poland - Gazeta Wyborcza - Original Article (Polish)

A protester at the NATO Summit in Chicago: Will Europeans manage to pull together and breathe new life into the Alliance?

BBC NEWS VIDEO: NATO will end combat in Afghanistan next year, May 22, 00:02:55RealVideo

The financial crisis has had an impact on European security and defense policy similar to the one that the fall of the Berlin Wall had on NATO members at the time: a momentary fragmentation that has forced a redefinition of joint action. Only the development of a shared, long-term security strategy will allow Europe to maintain and strengthen its defense capability. The NATO summit should therefore be a moment when Europe proves that it is beginning to implement such a strategy and is able to speak with one voice and act in unison on issues of security.

 

The Balkan crisis in the early 90s alerted European nations to the importance of autonomy in the area of defense. It led directly to the establishment of a common security and defense policy. Twelve years later, the purpose of that policy seems to have been forgotten. In spite of some progress, the European defense industry continues to be fragmented, a lack of political will has prevented the implementation of fundamental treaty obligations, and member states, under the pretext of the financial crisis, are again resorting to protectionism. This approach will only lead to a dead end, because without determined efforts at reform and a push toward greater collaboration, the defense and weapons industries of E.U. countries cannot survive competition driven by the potential of the United States and the rising powers of Asia and South America.

 

To escape this impasse requires more than just a substantial increase on defense spending in national E.U. budgets. For years, their combined spending for defense has been lower than the U.S. defense budget, the market has become more fragmented, and E.U. efforts have overlapped. The twenty seven E.U. countries produce over 80 different weapons systems (the U.S. produces 27) and maintain more than 60 shipyards, while in the United States there are two. The lack of a common military market costs the E.U. €3 billion a year [$3.8 billion]. In today’s economic environment, that is money being too easily spent.

 

The financial crisis has further deepened the differences between the “Union” and the “North American” segment of the Alliance: over the past ten years, the U.S. and Canadian portions of the NATO budget rose by 10 percent, up from 65 percent in 2000 to 75 percent in 2011. Estimates from 2011 show defense cuts in all European NATO countries, and only two maintained defense spending at 2 percent of GDP, as is required by the Washington Treaty.

 

Most importantly, there has been a weakening of European countries with the most important weapons industries, namely France, Germany and Great Britain (which together contribute 65 percent to the European share of NATO’s budget and 88 percent of funds for research and development). Because of the need to finance operating deficits and service debts, the situation in the defense sector won’t improve until at least 2016. This means that no country on its own will be able to ensure the E.U.’s defense, not to mention operations beyond E.U. territory. The intervention in Libya confirmed these deficiencies. Also confirmed was the reluctance of Americans to defend European strategic interests, something that was clearly enunciated by former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his farewell speech of June last year, as well as, soon afterwards, by the new secretary, Leon Panetta.

 

[Editor’s Note: In his farewell address, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in part: “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources ... to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

 

Without additional efforts, it will be difficult for Europe to maintain its role in its neighborhood and the world. Without a strong military capability, E.U. diplomacy will be far less effective, and individual member states - even the larger ones - will find that they are too small to count on the international stage.

 

As late as 2010, E.U. defense ministers asserted that the financial crisis cannot be an excuse for the E.U. to displease with a policy as important as that of shared security and defense. It is high time to put this notion into practice. The crisis, just as it is in the realm of economic policy, can be an opportunity to hammer out a new “security pact,” which would implement already-existing provisions regarding E.U. defense policy. In a situation in which the means are limited, we must act together to get more for less.

 

But let's not make errors similar to those committed during negotiations over the Fiscal Compact. To be effective, a new security pact cannot be a general, inter-governmental agreement. The E.U. already has a security strategy that takes account of new threats, and which confirmed the adequacy of NATO’s strategy as expressed in Lisbon. A new E.U. security pact should allow for the strengthening of Europe’s defense identity, allow us to confront the current crisis, and as a result, address self-interest and nationalism and all that this entails. It should express a coherent, long-term security strategy based on trust between states, in which national plans and the priorities of E.U. member countries are complementary; and it should be a strategy that at the same time defines the role of the E.U. in NATO, without the duplication of efforts but also without sticking our heads in the sand. The current political ping-pong in relations between the E.U. and NATO must now be replaced by a shared strategy and complementary action. For this to happen, Europe must be able to put more of its defense capabilities into the common basket of transatlantic defense.

Posted by Worldmeets.US

 

 

SEE ALSO ON THIS:

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany: ‘Lost Nation’: Germany NATO’s Biggest Problem

Die Zeit, Germany: Price of NATO Survival: Diminished Sovereignty

Frontier Post, Pakistan: American ‘Grandees’ Should Pay Pakistan and be Grateful

Gazeta Wyborcza, Polish: President Kwasniewski Admits He Allowed CIA Prisons

The Nation, Pakistan: Pakistanis will React Badly to Reopening NATO Routes

Le Monde, France: Pakistan and America: Preparing for a Timely ‘Divorce’

Frontier Post, Pakistan: Whistleblower Unravels America’s Afghan ‘Hoax’

The Nation, Pakistan: Apologies Won't 'Wash Away' NATO's Crimes in Pakistan
La Jornada, Mexico:
Senators and U.S. Drones: What Else are They Hiding?
The Nation, Pakistan: Downing American Drones: Iran Shows Pakistan the Way
The Nation, Pakistan: Time for Pakistan to Down America's 'Bionic Dragons'
The Nation, Pakistan:
Cost of Friendship with America is Far Too High
The Nation, Pakistan:
For NATO Supply to Resume, U.S. Must Admit to Guilt
The Daily Jang, Pakistan: Is Washington Behind Pakistan's 'Memogate'?
The Frontier Post, Pakistan: U.S. Withdrawal Plans 'Spell Doom' for Pakistan

 

 

There are many scenarios for necessary change. The main thing for the E.U. side is that defense must no longer be held hostage to short-sighted political calculation that emerge out of an illusory sense of European strategic stability, and from this, a sense of security.

 

The Treaty of Lisbon introduces a clause in regard to collective defense, and the E.U. must adopt measures to fulfill its ambitions. This can only be achieved by boosting its efforts and implementing greater “pooling and sharing,” which was first initiated in 2010 by the E.U. Council of Ministers consisting of the sharing of military resources and a division of labor.

 

Defense cooperation cannot be confined to logistics and training – as it was before. There must be streamlined decision-making, a reinforcement of E.U. planning structures, and purchasing plans, communications systems, and systems of acquiring intelligence and surveillance must be coordinated. In addition, treasury ministers should occasionally attend meetings of defense ministers so the latter will be able to plan with full knowledge of the available means, and in their turn, treasury ministers will help as they are knowledgeable about the challenges and potential benefits of scale.

 

Just as with policies on stability and growth, E.U. security policy should be discussed anew by member state leaders. May the NATO summit in Chicago be such a stimulus, and the crisis in the E.U. an alarm bell leading to a greater integration of European security and defense.

 

*Jacek Saryusz-Wolski is the head of the European Parliament delegation for the relations with NATO's Parliamentary Assembly

YOUR DONATION MAKES OUR WORK AS

A NON-PROFIT POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

CLICK HERE FOR POLISH VERSION

opinions powered by SendLove.to
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by Worldmeets.US May 22, 9:49pm]

 

 

 

 







Bookmark and Share