By Filippo Chiesa
In their two debates so far, Senators McCain and Obama have made but shallow references to America's European allies. The focus of the first discussion was U.S. foreign and security policy: the candidates exchanged views on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China. Neither of them, however, mentioned the EU, nor did they sketch their visions of the future of trans-Atlantic relations. Why is that?
If we look at the pace at which the U.S. has been projecting its military forces abroad in the past few years, we would think it natural for the next administration to ask the Europeans to contribute to expenditure for common security, and consequently allow independent EU planning and operational military capabilities. To be fair, Obama did herald a restoration of "America's standing in the world" and McCain did boast that he knows how to deal "with enemies and friends". But nothing more specific emerged, and we are left with our original question: why was Europe the missing piece of the debate?
The most compelling answer is that we - Europeans - have never found the courage or political will to plan and operate missions on our own. We rely instead on the U.S. to direct our common missions.
However, things are changing. France is now willing to re-enter the NATO integrated military command and remains committed to develop a stronger European Defense and Security Policy (EDSP), with a proposal for a common 60,000-strong contingent for EU peace-keeping missions. Surprisingly, Britain now seems to be more receptive to these proposals, perhaps realizing that military cooperation could lessen the stress imposed on British forces by the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet the institutional turmoil aroused by the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty is slowing down EDSP reforms.
But the world has no time to wait: in January there will be a new administration in Washington. European leaders should do their best to streamline their cooperation in military and security affairs - notwithstanding the institutional deadlock - to give a strong signal to the candidates for the White House that Europe is ready to do its part in managing world affairs. Only such a change in Europe could improve the present state of trans-Atlantic ties and make sure that the next U.S. president - unlike the current one - will listen to the (hopefully united) voice of the European Union. In a way, change in Europe can bring about change in Washington, too.
Filippo Chiesa is a graduate student in the IR/International Policy and Economics programs at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C.
Email the Author | Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Johns Hopkins University.
Comments (7)
Unfortunately, this means that the defense industry lobbysts are starting to take over the EU - after they completly enslaved and depleted the US's budget for generations to come. How about we propose a 16% above the board tax for everyone in the US - like in some EU countries - eliminate all the loopholes from the tax code, to end once and for all the talk about "tax cuts". Only then we can start moving the debate of future Presidental races from "tax cuts" to "defense budget cuts?" How come Main Street and Every Man has no say in the size of this humongous Defense budget? This is why we have wars every few years in the US, started on the most ridiculous assumptions - the defense industry needs to be fed.
October 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 18, 2008 15:49
I meant issues with the French Military establishment. By those I mean communication issues and such, issues that led to serious problems with cooperation and execution of military tactics.
I was wondering how you felt about these issues and their possible affect on the EU military establishment
October 17, 2008 6:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 17, 2008 18:36
brochner1
What kind of issues are you talking about?
October 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 17, 2008 17:26
It is way past time to get real serious about ending military actions; everywhere! Most wars are about economics, with a few egomaniacs thrown in for good measure; well the world economics is beginning to become dire...we have run our of "easy" resources to steal and loot! Therefore economic wars can no longer be allowed; George's preemptive wars for ideological ignorance and hubris must be repudiated by all "civilized" peoples.
A “real” world federation of the world's people need to be created! A first step is to change membership from nations to "tribal" groupings based on pre-national borders, city-states, and perhaps various other subdivisions existing within nations. Power must be diversified; thereby requiring coalitions to achieve action and preventing any single entity from domination.
To prevent war; there should be an absolute monopoly on the manufacture of all heavy weapons and their munitions by the world federation; the world federation needs to have the policing forces made up of volunteers from all members, relating membership power to the number of such volunteers might be useful. In general the officers of such forces need to be professional graduates of existing military schools and the chain of command needs to be designed to prevent any group from having top to bottom control.
Global action is required for many growing problems, from financial rules, laws, and permitted activities to environmental issues of global warming, species extinction, and basic availability of air, water, soil to support all live on the planet. Resources need to be managed for the betterment of all, not just the “nations” who have current dominance!
The “United” Nations is a failure in concept as well as implementation; nations themselves are failures and need to be replaced; ideological and religious behaviors must be exposed and ended, such ignorance can no longer be allowed to waste our world!
October 17, 2008 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 17, 2008 12:56
Fillipo
Very interesting read. I agree with you that Europe needs to move forward in streamlining its military and security cooperation. Especially with the end of the US-centric world. It will be necessary for our (the US) European friends to ensure their own security and protect their own interests, especially with the rise of Russian geopolitical involvement in the 'Near Abroad'.
I wonder about the French question though, the First Gulf War showed some serious issues in French military strategy and implementation. How do you think that will affect the effectiveness of the EU peace-keeping force?
October 17, 2008 12:31 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 17, 2008 00:31
Zolko,
I take your argument, which points to the EU as a purely economic union with a positive influence on other countries.
But by encouraging Europe to "do its part in managing world affairs" I mean:
(i) Have the capability of deploying troops in areas which are crucial to the stability of the larger region (e.g. Balkans, Lebanon etc.)
(ii) Have the capability to intervene in accordance to humanitarian law to prevent crimes aginst humanity.
Or should we always rely on the US to achieve these results?
Thanks for your comment.
Filippo
October 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 16, 2008 15:39
wait wait wait, not so fast:
"European leaders should (...) give a strong signal to the candidates for the White House that Europe is ready to do its part in managing world affairs"
What do you have in mind by "managing world affairs" ? As far as I'm concerned, and this is true for ALL people I know, Europeans are not willing to manage any sort of "world affairs" that have been proposed recently.
October 15, 2008 8:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on October 15, 2008 08:15