DTIC ADA421828: Europe's New Security Vocation

97 Pages·0.84 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

From the introduction to Recent titles E
u M NAIR PAPER 66
r C
Europe’s New in the McNair o
p
e
Security Vocation Paper series: ’s

N
e
For the United States, having w

S
more militarily capable allies who
65 e
c Europe’s New
are ready to shoulder heavier bur- u
Agricultural Bioterrorism: r
i
dens has been a long-time goal, A Federal Strategy to ty
Address the Threat V Security Vocation
one that became more
o
c
compelling in light of the wars Henry S. Parker a
t
i
o
in the former Yugoslavia. Allies
n
able to do the difficult job of 64
peacemaking and peacekeeping The Strategic Implications
of a Nuclear-Armed Iran
could ease the demands on
the United States to police a Kori N. Schake and
Judith S. Yaphe
continent where nationality con-
flicts, which do not affect core
63
American interests, are the
All Possible Wars?
main threat to peace. Further-
Toward a Consensus View
more, the cumulative effects of
of the Future Security
protracted peacekeeping engage- Environment, 2001–2025
ments on military resources and
Sam J. Tangredi
morale are a growing concern.
M I C H A E L J. B R E N N E R
A more equitable distribution
62
of duties also conforms to the B
The Revenge of the R
E
U.S. reluctance to back com- Melians: Asymmetric N
N
mitting its troops to missions Threats and the Next QDR E
R
that risk casualties in doubtful Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr.
causes that affect West
Europeans more directly than 61
they do the United States. Illuminating
Tomorrow’s War
Institute for National Strategic Studies
Martin C. Libicki
National Defense University
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED
JAN 2002 N/A -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Europe’s New Security Vocation
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Michael J. Brenner
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies Fort REPORT NUMBER
McNair Washington, DC 20319
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The original document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 96
unclassified unclassified unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
01 McN 66_Cvs 1/10/02 11:28 AM Page 2
About the Author NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
President: Vice Admiral Paul G.Gaffney II,USN
Michael J. Brenner is professor of international relations at the Vice President: Ambassador Robin Lynn Raphel
University of Pittsburgh. He researched and wrote this paper while
INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES
serving as a distinguished visiting fellow in the Institute for National
Director: Stephen J.Flanagan
Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. Dr. Brenner
earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley. He has PUBLICATION DIRECTORATE
published several works on Euro-American relations and European Director and Editor,Joint Force Quarterly: Robert A.Silano
security, including Terms of Engagement: The United States and the General Editor,NDU Press: William R.Bode
European Security Identity(Washington, DC: Center for Strategic Supervisory Editor,NDU Press: George C.Maerz
and International Studies, 1998), NATO and Collective Security
National Defense University Press
(London: Macmillan, 1997), and articles in Politique Etrangere,
ATTN:NDU–NSS–PD
Internationale Politik, International Affairs, Survival, and Foreign 300 Fifth Avenue (Bldg.62)
Policy. His latest work, coauthored with Guillaume Parmentier, is Fort Lesley J.McNair
Reconciliable Differences: U.S.-French Relations in the New Era Washington,D.C. 20319–5066
(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2001). Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:(202) 685–4806
(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2)
About INSS Publications
Print Publications
For general information on publications and other programs of the Institute
for National Strategic Studies, consult the National Defense University Web
site at http://www.ndu.edu. To request a complimentary copy of available
NDU Press titles, contact [email protected] e-mail or leave a voice
message at (202) 685–4210. Most NDU Press titles can be purchased from the
U.S. Government Printing Office; call (202) 512–1800 or order on-line at
The National Defense University (NDU) is a joint professional military education institution
http://www.access.gpo.gov.
operating under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Its purpose is to
prepare military and civilian leaders for service at the highest levels of national defense Electronic Publications
and security. The principal operating elements of NDU are the Industrial College of the Numerous titles published by NDU Press are available on-line at
Armed Forces, National War College, Joint Forces Staff College, Information Resources http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/press/ndup2.html.
Management College, Institute for National Strategic Studies, and Center for Hemispheric
Defense Studies. Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ)
The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) conducts strategic studies for the The journal publishes articles, reviews, professional notes, and other features
Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and unified commanders in by military officers, defense analysts, and scholars on the integrated employ-
chief; supports national strategic components of NDU academic programs; and provides ment of land, sea, air, space, and special operations forces. JFQfocuses on
outreach to other governmental agencies and the broader national security community. joint doctrine, coalition warfare, contingency planning, combat operations con-
The Publication Directorate of INSS publishes books, monographs, reports, and ducted by unified commands, and joint force development. For current and
occasional papers on national security strategy, defense policy, and national military
back numbers of the journal, visit the JFQHome Page maintained on the Joint
strategy through National Defense University Press that reflect the output of university
Doctrine Web site at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/index.htm.
research and academic programs. In addition, it produces Joint Force Quarterly, a
professional military journal published for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Europe’s New
Security Vocation
Michael J. Brenner
McNair Paper 66
INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES
NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2002
The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied
within are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Department of Defense or any other agency of the Federal Govern-
ment. This publication is cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.
Portions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without further
permission, with credit to the Institute for National Strategic Studies. A
courtesy copy of any reviews and tearsheets would be appreciated.
First printing, January 2002
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office. To order, contact
Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, D.C.
20402–9328
(ISSN 1071–7552)
Contents
Foreword
................................................. v
Acknowledgments
..................................... vii
Chapter One
Introduction
.............................................. 1
Chapter Two
Perspectives on the Use of Force
................... 13
Chapter Three
EU–NATO Cooperation
.............................. 41
Chapter Four
Conclusion
............................................... 73
Appendix
Principal Institutions of the European Union
..... 85
Endnotes
................................................. 89
iii
Foreword
The quest of the European Union (EU) to develop capabilities in
security and defense affairs has been a surprisingly contentious
issue in transatlantic relations over the past decade. Officials in
EU governments have been perplexed that European Security and
Defense Policy (ESDP), which they see as integral to building the EU in
all of its dimensions, is viewed in some American political circles with
trepidation, or even as a grave threat to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).
Most Europeans believe that ESDP will actually strengthen the
Alliance by allowing Europeans to assume a larger share of the burdens
of transatlantic security. While Washington has long professed support
in principle for ESDP, American objections to specific EU defense
initiatives have led some European governments to doubt the strength of
that support. However, European efforts to press the development of
ESDP in the context of recent crises have heightened American concerns
that the project is designed to displace rather than bolster NATO. Some
of the controversy can be attributed to periodic rhetorical flourishes by
European officials that greatly overstate near-term ESDP capabilities or
long-term goals. Certain American concerns are due, in part, to
misperceptions and misunderstanding of ESDP structure and activities
on this side of the Atlantic.
Michael Brenner’s fluid and incisive analysis chronicles the
development of ESDP and assesses its durability and driving political
motivations. In the process, he helps to demystify the functioning of
ESDP, which is of particular value to American readers unfamiliar with
this initiative. Professor Brenner also advances a number of sound
recommendations for U.S. policymakers about handling ESDP. As he
argues, if Washington consults with European allies in ways that
diminish concerns about American unilateralism, reduces restrictions on
technology transfers critical to European defense modernization, and
v
vi FOREWORD
develops reliable modalities for NATO–EU military cooperation, then
the prospects that ESDP will evolve in a manner consistent with long-
term U.S. interests will greatly increase. This paper sheds much light on
a European project whose outcome is critical to American security.
Stephen J. Flanagan, Director
Institute for National Strategic Studies
Acknowledgments
In writing this paper, I have been the beneficiary of the hospitality,
encouragement, and intellectual stimulation provided by the Institute
for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense
University (NDU). I had the exceptional opportunity to spend a year at
INSS as a distinguished visiting fellow at the invitation of Hans
Binnendijk, then Director of the Institute. The INSS Director of
Research, Stephen A. Cambone, and his colleagues engaged me in their
project on the nascent European Security and Defense Policy where this
study originated. The rich program of seminars and stream of European
visitors created the ideal setting for tracking and interpreting policy
trends on both sides of the Atlantic.
I wish to thank Dr. Cambone and Richard A. Kugler for their
comments on an earlier draft of this paper. A special word of apprecia-
tion goes to Stephen J. Flanagan who, as INSS Director, guided it to
completion through multiple drafts with patience, good humor, and an
unfailing critical eye. James A. Schear gave the manuscript attentive,
judicious editing that helped refine the final product. My thanks go as
well to Robert A. Silano, Director of Publications, for his professional-
ism and friendship.
Thanks are also due to the editorial staff of NDU Press—
William R. Bode, George C. Maerz, Lisa M. Yambrick, and Jeffrey D.
Smotherman—who brought this publication to completion under the
supervision of Mr. Silano.
vii
Chapter One
Introduction
The idea of a European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) has
been a feature of the transatlantic security dialogue for a decade.
The 1991 Maastricht Treaty foresaw an eventual incorporation of
the Western European Union (WEU) as the defense arm of the European
Union (EU). Endowing the Union with military capability was a logical
extension of the commitment to a Common Foreign and Security Policy
(CFSP) as stipulated in the treaty. Both ideas, promoted by France and
Germany, expressed the general desire of member states to play a more
active role in securing the peace and stability of postcommunist Europe.
Extending the principle of integration into the foreign policy field served
two purposes. It was a means to tighten community bonds in the new,
unsettled strategic environment by providing reassurance against the
renationalization of defense policies. At the same time, it laid the basis
for a collective effort to influence continental affairs consonant with the
European venture in an orderly transition to democracy and market
economies. The perceived need to add a security building block to the
project of “constructing Europe” also reflected apprehension about a
possible retreat of the United States from a Europe now free of the
Soviet military threat. That possibility added further reason for West
Europeans to make contingency plans for an uncertain future.1
For the United States, having more militarily capable allies who
are ready to shoulder heavier burdens has been a long-time goal, one that
became more compelling in light of the wars in the former Yugoslavia.
Allies able to do the difficult job of peacemaking and peacekeeping
could ease the demands on the United States to police a continent where
nationality conflicts are the main threat to peace. Furthermore, the
cumulative effects of protracted peacekeeping on military readiness and
morale are a growing concern. A more equitable distribution of duties
also conforms to the U.S. reluctance to back committing its troops to
1