Fruska%20gora,%20July%2025th%202009.

1
Evolution of the EU-NATO relations

• Fruska gora, July 25th 2009.
• Adel Abusara

2
Outline of the presentation

• Preliminary remarks
• History of the EU-NATO relations
• Pre-ESDP period
• Proto-ESDP period
• Move from aspiration to operations
• NATO developments
• Atrophy in transatlantic relations
• Future or what is to be done

3
HistoryPre-ESDP period

• Cold War NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (neutrality or
  non-alignment)
• WEU weak security attempt to contain Germany
  (Brussels Treaty 1948.)
• Failure of different attempts to create
  supranational defence arrangement (most notably
  EDC 1954.)

4
History Proto-ESDP period (1)

• 1989 end of the bifurcation of military
  alliance structures demise of the Warsaw Pact
• NATO side period of self-examination, finding
  new raison dêtre
• EC/EU side Maastricht Treaty (1992)
• Creation of the CFSP(...common defence policy
  which might in time lead to common defence TEU)
  
• rebirth of the WEU as a European defence
  organization providing a ready-made mechanism for
  the MS to exploit

5
History Proto-ESDP period (2)

• WEU as a model for understanding the EU
  variable geometry (intergovernmental,
  complement, not alternative to NATO, kept defense
  provision away from the EU)
• The EU-WEU relationship European pillar of NATO
  ESDI (first mentioned in 1991 NATO Strategic
  concept) defense component of the EU!
• Petersberg tasks 1992. WEU expanding its
  operations to encompass humanitarian and rescue
  tasks, peace-keeping tasks, and tasks of combat
  forces in crisis management institutionalizatio
  n of WEU
• 1994. NATO decides to make available assets and
  capabilities for WEU operations

6
History Proto-ESDP period (3)

• Amsterdam Treaty
• Strengthening of the commitment on military
  security
• Closer institutional relations with the WEU with
  a possibility of its integration into the Union
• Inclusion of the Petersberg tasks in the text
  (Finland, Sweden)
• High Representative for CFSP ( Secretary General
  of the WEU) symbolically J. Solana!

7
History From Aspirations to Operations

• Turning point St. Malo agreement (change of
  attitude of T. Blair, reason - Kosovo) start of
  the ESDP
• The EU should have the capacity for autonomous
  action, backed up by credible military forces,
  the means to decide to use them and a readiness
  to do so
• Two means of implementing EU-led operations with
  NATO assets and capabilities, or without them
• Cologne meeting of the European Council 1999 EU
  and NATO activities should be complementary and
  not competitive
• Helsinki meeting of the European Council 1999
  formal launching of the ESDP
• Autonomous capacity of the EU to react when NATO
  as a whole is not engaged!
• The force 60.000 troops operational at 2003,
  capable of staying in the field at least 1 year.
• Also, creation of institutions to support the
  decision (Political and Security Committee,
  Military Committee, Military Stuff , etc.)

8
History From Aspirations to Operations

• WEU going to history (although it still exists,
  but without a major role)
• European Defense Agency, European Institute for
  Security Studies, EU Satellite Centre, European
  Security and Defense College
• May 2003 existing operational capacity across
  the full range of Petersberg tasks, limited and
  constrained by recognized shortfalls
• June 2004 new plan Headline Goal 2010
• Operational centre of the EU
• First non-NATO military structure to emerge in
  post-Cold War Europe

9
NATO Developments

• Evolutionary development of NATO in contrast to
  revolutionary development of ESDP
• 4 NATO summits as staging posts Rome 1991(new
  strategic concept), Brussels 1994 (PfP), Madrid
  1997 (start of the enlargement), Washington 1999
  (NATO position on ESDI-accepting the autonomy of
  Europe)
• Prague 2002 Declaration on ESDP NATO giving EU
  access to NATO assets and capabilities for
  operations in which NATO itself is not engaged
  military

10
NATO Developments (2)

• 2003 Berlin plus- very important, provides for
  EU access to NATO operational planning, NATO
  capabilities and common assets, NATO European
  command operations and the NATO defense planning
  system adapted to the needs of Europeans
• Berlin-plus missions of he EU Concordia
  (Macedonia), Althea (BiH-symbolic replacement of
  NATOs SFOR mission)

11
Political cooperation and consultations of the EU
and NATO

• Formally they started in 2001. with exchange of
  letters between NATO Gensec and Sweden, who
  presided the EU at the time
• May 2001. first official meeting of ministers of
  foreign affairs
• Regular consultations on ambassadors level, level
  of military committees Gensec of NATO and HR of
  the EU

12
Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations

• Quality of US Europeans relations as
  significant (the most important) factor in
  division of labor between the EU and the NATO
• Relative military weakness of the Europeans
  vis-à-vis US at the end of the century, and
  therefore incapability of sustainable Balkan
  diplomacy
• Incomparable military budgets after September 11

13
Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations (2)US making
the dinner and Europeans doing the dishes
(Kagan)

• Despite expectations on both sides of the
  Atlantic (e.g. Huntington), EU didnt (try to)
  become superpower. Why?
• Europe has developed over the past half-century
  genuinely different perspective on the role of
  power in IR, based on unique historical
  experience
• Modern European culture is constant rejection of
  the past
• Europe is trying to multilateralise US
• So, what Europe wants? US umbrella, dealing with
  itself only? EU foreign policy is the most
  anemic all the products of EU integration.

14
Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations (3)US making
the dinner and Europeans doing the dishes
(Kagan)

• US hyperpower (Vedrin)
• EU as American project
• The great paradox is that the passage to
  post-modern Europe was made possible by US, and
  by their decision not to take the same passage
• Madeleine Albright 1998 concerns about 3 Ds
  decoupling transatlantic link, duplicating
  defence reources and discrimination against the
  non-EU European NATO members
• US must sometimes play by the rules of the
  Hobbesian world, even though in doing so it
  violates European norms
• The importance of French return in NATO

15
Future or what is to be done?

• Uncertainty about the future of EU NATO
  relations what if they want to act in different
  ways in certain situation? Overlapping capacities
• How long will EU use Berlin-plus arrangements?
• Have the EU and NATO shaped themselves
  completely? Is their own future certain?

16
Thank you.

• adel.abusara_at_ccmr-bg.org