Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Europe should learn to fend for itself
By Gordon Adams
Published: July 1 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: July 1 2003 20:02 in The Financial Times
Europeans are anxious, afraid that after 50 years of defending their continent and encouraging a common security capability, the US now wants to divide them and prevent that capability from emerging.
For a growing number of influential Europeans, US actions - the Iraq war, name-calling about "old Europe", scoffing about European defence capabilities, base relocation plans and a childish obsession with insulting France - all point towards a deliberate effort to hinder European unity and carve out a zone of friendly countries in the new democracies of central Europe.
The truth is even more disturbing. In reality the current administration is ignoring Europe. It has switched its attention to the fractious disputes in the "arc of conflict" that stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Europeans need to face up to this change, not hanker after a return to more "normal" days.
This dynamic is not temporary. The Bush administration is focused on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and determined to ensure long-term US global dominance as the strongest military power. A decade of thinking and activity has embedded this approach in every aspect of US strategy. Future administrations will retain this broad orientation, even if they are more "user-friendly".
Washington does not fear the emergence of a more united, independent and capable European defence, backed by a modern military; it simply doubts it will ever happen. To the Bush administration, Europe is in decline and America is on the rise. There is no point in dividing Europe; Europe is not a threat and is unlikely to become an equal partner.
Europeans can occasionally become allies of convenience. British expeditionary and Polish security forces can provide useful backing for American missions. A Nato reaction force might be helpful. Even the French may one day sail in a flotilla commanded by the US. But the Americans will not be teased back into the familiar transatlantic game. It is no longer "divide and conquer" but, for now, a global "high noon", with the US as sheriff.
What are Europe's options? First and foremost, strategic planning at the European Union level requires a clear vision of Europe's strategic interests: stability and equality in a global economy; preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of potential adversaries; dismantling terrorist organisations; and peace in the eastern Mediterranean. The recent draft of a common security policy by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is a start, but remains vague.
Second, this vision should have a direct impact on EU military planning. An ambitious European diplomacy can succeed only if military forces are an integral part of the overall strategy. Today's pursuit of an EU military capability lacks any link to a common vision - what are its forces for?
Third, armed with a vision and forces to support it, Europeans must set priorities. Vague promises of future defence budget growth are an empty gesture. Governments must face the tough decisions together, with some countries specialising now. The French, for example, may need to reconsider their plan to modernise their nuclear force, while the Germans may at last have to abandon conscription. It also means putting a much higher priority on research and development investment.
Fourth, the European defence industry must be rationalised instead of being maintained as an employment programme. Europeans are wasting resources on sectors from the past: fighter aircraft, ships and land equipment. Projects such as the Galileo satellite system and the A400M transport aircraft, which will enable European forces to operate autonomously, should be a priority. Beyond that, industry restructuring is needed in areas such as precision-guided munitions, sensors, command and control systems and communications, where Europe has a significant technological base.
One day, the US government will recognise that it needs partners to manage the global challenges it faces. Europe's challenge is to become capable of filling such a role, not to stand by and wait for the US to "return to normal." It is time for Europe to show that it intends to be a serious and autonomous global player with clear strategic goals and proven military capabilities.
The writer is professor of security studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and served in the White House 1993-97
By Gordon Adams
Published: July 1 2003 20:02 | Last Updated: July 1 2003 20:02 in The Financial Times
Europeans are anxious, afraid that after 50 years of defending their continent and encouraging a common security capability, the US now wants to divide them and prevent that capability from emerging.
For a growing number of influential Europeans, US actions - the Iraq war, name-calling about "old Europe", scoffing about European defence capabilities, base relocation plans and a childish obsession with insulting France - all point towards a deliberate effort to hinder European unity and carve out a zone of friendly countries in the new democracies of central Europe.
The truth is even more disturbing. In reality the current administration is ignoring Europe. It has switched its attention to the fractious disputes in the "arc of conflict" that stretches from North Africa to Indonesia. Europeans need to face up to this change, not hanker after a return to more "normal" days.
This dynamic is not temporary. The Bush administration is focused on terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and determined to ensure long-term US global dominance as the strongest military power. A decade of thinking and activity has embedded this approach in every aspect of US strategy. Future administrations will retain this broad orientation, even if they are more "user-friendly".
Washington does not fear the emergence of a more united, independent and capable European defence, backed by a modern military; it simply doubts it will ever happen. To the Bush administration, Europe is in decline and America is on the rise. There is no point in dividing Europe; Europe is not a threat and is unlikely to become an equal partner.
Europeans can occasionally become allies of convenience. British expeditionary and Polish security forces can provide useful backing for American missions. A Nato reaction force might be helpful. Even the French may one day sail in a flotilla commanded by the US. But the Americans will not be teased back into the familiar transatlantic game. It is no longer "divide and conquer" but, for now, a global "high noon", with the US as sheriff.
What are Europe's options? First and foremost, strategic planning at the European Union level requires a clear vision of Europe's strategic interests: stability and equality in a global economy; preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of potential adversaries; dismantling terrorist organisations; and peace in the eastern Mediterranean. The recent draft of a common security policy by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is a start, but remains vague.
Second, this vision should have a direct impact on EU military planning. An ambitious European diplomacy can succeed only if military forces are an integral part of the overall strategy. Today's pursuit of an EU military capability lacks any link to a common vision - what are its forces for?
Third, armed with a vision and forces to support it, Europeans must set priorities. Vague promises of future defence budget growth are an empty gesture. Governments must face the tough decisions together, with some countries specialising now. The French, for example, may need to reconsider their plan to modernise their nuclear force, while the Germans may at last have to abandon conscription. It also means putting a much higher priority on research and development investment.
Fourth, the European defence industry must be rationalised instead of being maintained as an employment programme. Europeans are wasting resources on sectors from the past: fighter aircraft, ships and land equipment. Projects such as the Galileo satellite system and the A400M transport aircraft, which will enable European forces to operate autonomously, should be a priority. Beyond that, industry restructuring is needed in areas such as precision-guided munitions, sensors, command and control systems and communications, where Europe has a significant technological base.
One day, the US government will recognise that it needs partners to manage the global challenges it faces. Europe's challenge is to become capable of filling such a role, not to stand by and wait for the US to "return to normal." It is time for Europe to show that it intends to be a serious and autonomous global player with clear strategic goals and proven military capabilities.
The writer is professor of security studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University and served in the White House 1993-97
Comments:
Post a Comment
