The main task at NATO’s 60th anniversary summit in April 2009 will be to draft a new strategic concept. It is an assignment that will undoubtedly provoke an intense and none too easy debate about the future of the alliance. When undertaking this debate, it is important to realise that the context in which NATO operates has changed fundamentally and that, accordingly, some fundamental changes in the organisation of transatlantic relations are required.
For some time now, the political centre of gravity has been shifting away from NATO, to the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). NATO no longer is the forum for political debate between Europe and North America. On many issues - the Galileo program and nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example - there has been a preference for direct dialogue between “EU-Brussels” and Washington.
Furthermore, many of the priority issues on today’s agenda are only indirectly related to security and defence. Not only does NATO have little or no expertise on the financial crisis, climate change, energy etc. - it would also send a strange signal if we would task a military Alliance to address them. Furthermore, even with regard to security and defence issues a comprehensive or holistic approach is required that also integrates the political, economic and social dimensions of foreign policy. And in some cases - relations with Russia, foremost among them - NATO appears part of the problem rather than of the solution. Indeed, for some time, NATO has been evolving into a “two pillar” system, in which the EU and the US are the primary level of decision-making, alongside the collection of individual national governments. The EU and US are capable of pursuing a holistic foreign policy, co-ordinating their efforts in aid and trade, democracy and human rights promotion, diplomacy and defence. And the EU, contrary to NATO, is much more than a mere intergovernmental organisation.
NATO between EU and US
Importantly, at the same time a strategic divergence has occurred between the EU and the US, best expressed in their respective strategies. Where US National Security Strategy emphasises that the world is a very dangerous place, the European Security Strategy stresses the world’s complexity. This divergence will not disappear with another occupant in the White House, because it is a result not of the Americans, but of the Europeans having changed – the EU has become increasingly aware of its own interests and priorities.
This double-sided evolution - closer co-operation between the US and EU, despite an increasing divergence in their strategic views - should be reflected in the way transatlantic relations are organised:
- The EU-US partnership must be deepened, and made more comprehensive and operational. In a multi-polar world, the EU must have the necessary margin of manoeuvre to interact flexibly with all global actors, but America will undoubtedly remain Europe’s closest ally. This political partnership though must be much more than mere “summitry.” Perhaps there will be a need to design new forums and institutions where this partnership can be pursued. Certainly, the European dialogue with the US must be pursued collectively through the European Union. Given such a partnership, NATO would become more of a technical and executive body. Indeed, were the EU and the US decide to act together militarily, they would certainly pursue their goals through NATO.
- NATO’s new strategic concept should be located at the overlap between the European Security Strategy and the US National Security Strategy. Increasingly, the primary level of decision-making, including on security and defence, are the two “pillars”, the EU and the US. Indeed, whereas before an EU pillar within NATO was talked about, now the pillars are themselves the dominant players. From the European perspective, the EU is the body where decisions are made regarding whether or not to act in a given crisis. If military action is decided upon, the secondary decision is to choose the operational framework: the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), NATO, the UN or the OSCE. That choice will always be an ad hoc decision, a function of which partners want to go along and which organisation is best suitable for the crisis at hand – reality is too complex for a fixed division of labour to work.
- At the EU-level therefore, in the context of ESDP, European military capabilities have to be further developed, through various forms of cooperation and pooling. This would guarantee the autonomy of ESDP, while ensuring that integrated European capabilities can be deployed for NATO operations if that framework is decided upon for a specific mission. The EU and NATO can also reach agreement on the cooperative use of the EU’s civilian assets. The EU should be fully involved in planning for scenarios in which NATO would lead a military operation and the EU would lead a concurrent civilian deployment.
The ball is now in the European camp – is the EU ready to catch it? A de facto evolution towards a “two-pillar-NATO” is taking place, but for the model to work effectively and a true partnership of equals to emerge, Europe must speak, and act, as one.
Prof. Dr. Sven Biscop is director of the Security & Global Governance Programme at Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations (Brussels) and visiting professor for European Security at the College of Europe (Bruges) and Ghent University.