OPINION
Why
NATO needs a European pillar
If
Europe tries to protect the alliance only by ‘buying’ American
commitment through increased defense spending, it will fail.
By JEAN-MARIE
GUÉHENNO 2/11/17, 4:13 AM CET
Europeans have every
reason to worry about U.S. President Donald Trump. He has declared
NATO “obsolete.” He’s spoken more glowingly about Russian
President Vladimir Putin than about most Western European leaders.
And he’s suggested he will apply his transactional vision of
diplomacy to his country’s alliances. A president who has
unabashedly made “America First” his guiding principle is telling
Europeans America’s commitment to them will depend on their
willingness to pay for it.
The Continent’s
leaders should listen carefully. For too long, European countries
have not been serious enough about their own defense; most spend much
less than the 2 percent of GDP goal set by NATO. If they do not
change course, a president who has little understanding of soft power
and, in his own words, only respects “strength,” will not take
them seriously.
A European security
landscape defined in bilateral talks between Russia and the U.S. is a
serious possibility, one that would be terrible news for the
Continent. Trump might care most about fighting Islamic terrorism;
for Russia, the priority remains dividing Europe to gain the upper
hand.
If Europe’s only
response is to “buy” American commitment through increased
defense spending — as NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg has indicated
alliance members should do — it will fail. NATO cannot sustain
itself as a political alliance if it is guided by monetary
transactions. Its European members must show unity of purpose and
vision: The time has come to create a European pillar of NATO.
* * *
Today, there is no
shared vision of what NATO stands for, and apparently little interest
in the White House for the principles that gave substance to the NATO
security commitment during the last 67 years. The transatlantic
solidarity defined by Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty is only
credible if it is underpinned by a set of shared values.
NATO is about North
America’s engagement in Europe, and Europeans, working with Canada,
must take the initiative in proposing a vision adapted to the 21st
century. Otherwise, they run the risk that a president who has little
time for the Continent will see his European allies simply as
adjuncts to an “America First” strategy — and blatantly ignore
their interests.
Germany and France,
whose military capacities are increasingly compatible and
complementary, should take the lead once elections in both countries
have taken place.
The idea of a
European pillar is not new, but was deemed unnecessary for many years
because the alliance’s members shared a solid consensus on its
functions. As a proposal, a pillar now makes sense in terms of
realpolitik. With a U.S. president who appears more than happy to
play nations against one another, European countries are unlikely to
make themselves heard unless they can present a coherent, united
position.
The move would also
benefit intra-European political dynamics. Europeans are unlikely to
support increased defense spending if it is perceived simply as a
response to American bullying and support for Washington’s somewhat
incoherent policies. Increased effort must come with a renewed sense
of political ownership for NATO’s European members. A stronger EU
that regains political momentum by making its own security a
political priority, is an indispensable partner to a strong NATO.
The specifics of a
more integrated effort, whether a European headquarters or an
expanded role for the European Defense Agency, or ideas to implement
the EU global strategy in the area of security and defense as agreed
by EU member countries in November, should be discussed between EU
nations.
US soldiers march
with their flag during a welcome of the US Army's 3rd Armored Brigade
Combat Team for the inauguration of a bilateral military training of
US and Polish Forces in support of
National governments
will want to retain a central role in matters of national security,
but the European institutions can help coordinate the effort and give
it a broader European dimension.
* * *
A European pillar
will first have to decide on its membership. Germany and France,
whose military capacities are increasingly compatible and
complementary, should take the lead once elections in both countries
have taken place.
A caucus needs to
emerge within NATO. It should include the six founding members of the
EU, as well as more recent members, which could agree on two founding
principles: that the emergence of a European pillar is made necessary
by the changed strategic landscape; and that a European pillar should
be conceived as a means to strengthen NATO, not as an alternative to
it. In fact, one of its key goals will be to keep the U.S. engaged.
That core group
should in time be opened to other members of the EU and should
establish close consultation mechanisms with EU non-NATO members,
such as Sweden, and with NATO non–EU members, such as Norway and
Turkey.
An informal
political approach is probably the only viable path to this European
pillar, since a formal institutional approach would likely stall very
quickly. A formal arrangement with Turkey, for example, will remain
difficult until its problems with the bloc — the question of
Cyprus’ reunification remains a sore point — are solved.
And within the EU,
serious differences have emerged on what role the Union should play
in its own defense. Separated from the question of EU membership, a
European pillar within NATO could bring countries with varying
degrees of EU adherence into the fold. The United Kingdom — one of
the Continent’s most important military powers — for example, is
about to leave the EU but could find its strategic interests best
served by a close relationship with the new group.
In an era of rising
nationalism, creating a European pillar of NATO may sound ambitious.
But opinion polls show that Europeans, while critical of many aspects
of the EU, consider defense to be an area that warrants more, rather
than less, cooperation. The EU will not get out of its present
malaise by renouncing its ambitions. On the contrary, it needs to be
more ambitious if it wants to respond to the security concerns of its
citizens. The exceptional circumstances confronting Europe require an
exceptional response.
Jean-Marie Guéhenno
is president and CEO of International Crisis Group, the independent
conflict prevention organization.
Authors:
Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário