![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
Here is an article that takes one back to the days when we debated the American View as opposed to the European View on world affairs. In those discussions, we talked about the possiblility of the Europeans developing their military potential to back their position. It looks like they are trying to do just that.
KABUL, Afghanistan - Shortly before leaving on a recent patrol, French and German soldiers who have assumed leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's peacekeeping effort here gathered for a pep talk from France's defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie.
"Your presence is proof that Europe exists and is capable of bringing its weight to bear on the great crises shaking our planet,'' Ms. Alliot-Marie told the troops gathered in the lush green garden of the French Embassy in Kabul.
An hour later, weighed down by steel-plated body armor, the soldiers were trudging through the dusty, sewer-scented streets on the north end of this capital, where few residents seemed to care about any distinctly European aspects of the peacekeeping mission.
But Ms. Alliot-Marie's point was more that the European military presence in Afghanistan is proof to the United States that Europe exists. Or, more specifically, that the long-vaunted idea of a European defense - as distinct from NATO - is slowly taking shape.
The French and German soldiers, members of the five-nation Eurocorps, created more than a decade ago as the core of what proponents say could someday become a European army, are the most visible part of Europe's next grand project after unifying its markets under a single currency: a common European foreign policy backed up by military might.
Many American officials scoff at the idea as the lionlike dream of a military mouse, but the project has recently made significant strides: the 25-member European Union has created a European Defense Agency to coordinate purchasing and eliminate duplication among the union's militaries; it has established a command center to plan military campaigns; and it has begun training a staff for a European foreign ministry envisaged by the European Union's new constitution, which is awaiting ratification by union members.
Eurocorps took over command of NATO's peacekeeping force, known as the International Security Assistance Force, for six months beginning in August, and later this year the European Union will take over peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina from NATO altogether. Last year, the European Union relieved NATO of its smaller peacekeeping role in Macedonia and carried out its first solo military mission with a peacekeeping operation in Congo. Ms. Alliot-Marie says those operations demonstrate the ways that European defense will work as its capabilities grow: as a part of NATO, in relief of NATO and on its own without NATO.
That last option most concerns the United States, which has been eager for Europe to modernize its military capacity and yet is worried that a military-backed European political identity could someday limit Washington's freedom to act in the world.
"The French government and academic world don't want to see a continuation of American power expressed in Europe through NATO," said a senior NATO official in Brussels who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Unfortunately, the French government views the E.U.-NATO relationship as a competitive one and wants to weaken NATO to build up European defense."
While the United States has long wanted Europe to bear more of the NATO burden, it has worked to prevent a common European defense policy from coalescing outside NATO, warning that it would waste resources.
But many Europeans believe that, without its own defense and foreign policy, Europe is doomed to be a nonentity. "The objective is for the E.U. to have the military means to have its own ideas and interests respected the world over,'' a senior French diplomat said. The notion of a European defense grew out of the reconciliation in the 1960's between France and Germany. The countries formed a joint brigade in 1989, which was followed in 1992 by the establishment of Eurocorps, an expanded force that includes troops from Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. But the concept took greater force with a French-British summit meeting in 1998, and the recognition that an American-led NATO response to crises affecting Europe was no longer guaranteed.
Europe had recently failed its first big post-cold-war test when it was unable to address ethnic fighting in the Balkans decisively. It took American leadership through NATO to snap Europe out of its diplomatic paralysis and intervene in the crisis.
The United States emerged embittered at finding itself forced to share decision-making with an alliance that had little to add militarily. Europe, for its part, emerged chastised by its military impotence. The Balkan conflict provided the impetus for both a European Security and Defense Policy and for the American preference for action through fleeter, ad hoc coalitions.
"If there were another Balkan war today, I'm not sure we would have the same level of American involvement as before," the senior French diplomat said, arguing that Europe must be prepared to act on its own.
That feeling has grown stronger as the United States reduces its military presence in Europe. Washington recently announced plans to cut American troops there, having already shrunk their numbers to about 100,000 from more than 300,000 a little more than a decade ago.
Britain, however, has acted as a brake on European ambitions. It is committed to the idea of a European defense but is loath to cross the United States or risk damaging the trans-Atlantic alliance. "The idea that there should be a European alternative equal to NATO is anathema to us," said a British official in Brussels. But the French argue that giving NATO the right of first refusal to act in a crisis makes no sense.
"That's a very static view,'' said the senior French diplomat. "Who knows what the security situation will be in 15 to 20 years?''
For now, hobbled by slim defense budgets and ill-equipped militaries among most of its members, the European Union's defense operations have been small. Only a few hundred people were involved in Macedonia, and the 2,000-troop Congo operation was really a French one in European guise. The new European Union military planning capacity counts only a few dozen people, compared with thousands at NATO.
Meanwhile, each of the union's 25 members has the right to veto foreign policy decisions, impeding any decisive action by Europe. "Because of the E.U.'s military weakness and lack of political direction, they cannot hope to substitute for NATO," the senior NATO official said. "There's no way the E.U. could take on a difficult mission like Kosovo."
Yet while Europe's defense institutions are fledgling and the missions it has undertaken modest, the trajectory is unmistakable. With collective defense spending of about $200 billion, Europe has the capacity to modernize its military if it acts in a coordinated way. "Just 18 months ago, European defense was a virtual structure, doing exercises on paper," the senior French diplomat said. "Now the public can see it in action and the perception is changing."
Even before its capacity is in place, the union has begun to consider expanded roles for European defense, including mutual defense - an area previously reserved for NATO. The union's new constitution includes a mutual assistance clause, though it gives NATO the right of first refusal in reacting to any attack on one of its members.
Europe's proposed foreign ministry will help coordinate policies among European Union members and should reduce the kind of open rift that developed over support for the American-led war in Iraq.
While Europe may never have a clear-cut common foreign policy backed by military capacity, as individual countries do, the growing common interests of union members may well narrow the differences in their worldviews, making joint action increasingly possible.
"Five or 10 years ago, European defense was 30 percent rhetoric, 30 percent ideology and 40 percent reality, said François Heisbourg, director of France's Foundation for Strategic Research. "Now, because of what is happening to NATO and the U.S. footprint in Europe, we're moving toward 70 percent reality."
-- Craig S. Smith for The NY Times
.
Here is an article that takes one back to the days when we debated the American View as opposed to the European View on world affairs. In those discussions, we talked about the possiblility of the Europeans developing their military potential to back their position. It looks like they are trying to do just that.
KABUL, Afghanistan - Shortly before leaving on a recent patrol, French and German soldiers who have assumed leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's peacekeeping effort here gathered for a pep talk from France's defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie.
"Your presence is proof that Europe exists and is capable of bringing its weight to bear on the great crises shaking our planet,'' Ms. Alliot-Marie told the troops gathered in the lush green garden of the French Embassy in Kabul.
An hour later, weighed down by steel-plated body armor, the soldiers were trudging through the dusty, sewer-scented streets on the north end of this capital, where few residents seemed to care about any distinctly European aspects of the peacekeeping mission.
But Ms. Alliot-Marie's point was more that the European military presence in Afghanistan is proof to the United States that Europe exists. Or, more specifically, that the long-vaunted idea of a European defense - as distinct from NATO - is slowly taking shape.
The French and German soldiers, members of the five-nation Eurocorps, created more than a decade ago as the core of what proponents say could someday become a European army, are the most visible part of Europe's next grand project after unifying its markets under a single currency: a common European foreign policy backed up by military might.
Many American officials scoff at the idea as the lionlike dream of a military mouse, but the project has recently made significant strides: the 25-member European Union has created a European Defense Agency to coordinate purchasing and eliminate duplication among the union's militaries; it has established a command center to plan military campaigns; and it has begun training a staff for a European foreign ministry envisaged by the European Union's new constitution, which is awaiting ratification by union members.
Eurocorps took over command of NATO's peacekeeping force, known as the International Security Assistance Force, for six months beginning in August, and later this year the European Union will take over peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina from NATO altogether. Last year, the European Union relieved NATO of its smaller peacekeeping role in Macedonia and carried out its first solo military mission with a peacekeeping operation in Congo. Ms. Alliot-Marie says those operations demonstrate the ways that European defense will work as its capabilities grow: as a part of NATO, in relief of NATO and on its own without NATO.
That last option most concerns the United States, which has been eager for Europe to modernize its military capacity and yet is worried that a military-backed European political identity could someday limit Washington's freedom to act in the world.
"The French government and academic world don't want to see a continuation of American power expressed in Europe through NATO," said a senior NATO official in Brussels who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Unfortunately, the French government views the E.U.-NATO relationship as a competitive one and wants to weaken NATO to build up European defense."
While the United States has long wanted Europe to bear more of the NATO burden, it has worked to prevent a common European defense policy from coalescing outside NATO, warning that it would waste resources.
But many Europeans believe that, without its own defense and foreign policy, Europe is doomed to be a nonentity. "The objective is for the E.U. to have the military means to have its own ideas and interests respected the world over,'' a senior French diplomat said. The notion of a European defense grew out of the reconciliation in the 1960's between France and Germany. The countries formed a joint brigade in 1989, which was followed in 1992 by the establishment of Eurocorps, an expanded force that includes troops from Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. But the concept took greater force with a French-British summit meeting in 1998, and the recognition that an American-led NATO response to crises affecting Europe was no longer guaranteed.
Europe had recently failed its first big post-cold-war test when it was unable to address ethnic fighting in the Balkans decisively. It took American leadership through NATO to snap Europe out of its diplomatic paralysis and intervene in the crisis.
The United States emerged embittered at finding itself forced to share decision-making with an alliance that had little to add militarily. Europe, for its part, emerged chastised by its military impotence. The Balkan conflict provided the impetus for both a European Security and Defense Policy and for the American preference for action through fleeter, ad hoc coalitions.
"If there were another Balkan war today, I'm not sure we would have the same level of American involvement as before," the senior French diplomat said, arguing that Europe must be prepared to act on its own.
That feeling has grown stronger as the United States reduces its military presence in Europe. Washington recently announced plans to cut American troops there, having already shrunk their numbers to about 100,000 from more than 300,000 a little more than a decade ago.
Britain, however, has acted as a brake on European ambitions. It is committed to the idea of a European defense but is loath to cross the United States or risk damaging the trans-Atlantic alliance. "The idea that there should be a European alternative equal to NATO is anathema to us," said a British official in Brussels. But the French argue that giving NATO the right of first refusal to act in a crisis makes no sense.
"That's a very static view,'' said the senior French diplomat. "Who knows what the security situation will be in 15 to 20 years?''
For now, hobbled by slim defense budgets and ill-equipped militaries among most of its members, the European Union's defense operations have been small. Only a few hundred people were involved in Macedonia, and the 2,000-troop Congo operation was really a French one in European guise. The new European Union military planning capacity counts only a few dozen people, compared with thousands at NATO.
Meanwhile, each of the union's 25 members has the right to veto foreign policy decisions, impeding any decisive action by Europe. "Because of the E.U.'s military weakness and lack of political direction, they cannot hope to substitute for NATO," the senior NATO official said. "There's no way the E.U. could take on a difficult mission like Kosovo."
Yet while Europe's defense institutions are fledgling and the missions it has undertaken modest, the trajectory is unmistakable. With collective defense spending of about $200 billion, Europe has the capacity to modernize its military if it acts in a coordinated way. "Just 18 months ago, European defense was a virtual structure, doing exercises on paper," the senior French diplomat said. "Now the public can see it in action and the perception is changing."
Even before its capacity is in place, the union has begun to consider expanded roles for European defense, including mutual defense - an area previously reserved for NATO. The union's new constitution includes a mutual assistance clause, though it gives NATO the right of first refusal in reacting to any attack on one of its members.
Europe's proposed foreign ministry will help coordinate policies among European Union members and should reduce the kind of open rift that developed over support for the American-led war in Iraq.
While Europe may never have a clear-cut common foreign policy backed by military capacity, as individual countries do, the growing common interests of union members may well narrow the differences in their worldviews, making joint action increasingly possible.
"Five or 10 years ago, European defense was 30 percent rhetoric, 30 percent ideology and 40 percent reality, said François Heisbourg, director of France's Foundation for Strategic Research. "Now, because of what is happening to NATO and the U.S. footprint in Europe, we're moving toward 70 percent reality."
-- Craig S. Smith for The NY Times
.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 09:42 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-22 09:48 pm (UTC)From:Well, some have said that America needs a check on its hubris, and a better balance of power might have some advantages. Or it could be more chaos. Or maybe they will just be more helpful, hmph.
What a world!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 07:47 am (UTC)From:I will say, French homeland security in many ways surpasses our own though I noticed on my last trip to Chicago that we seem to be doing a bit better. But simply boarding a plane in France, I must have had my passport checked 7-9 times between check-in to literally a last minute check boarding the plane where a security professional in business suit walks you down the jetway double-checking your documents. And this was BEFORE 9/11!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 09:32 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 10:21 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 08:00 am (UTC)From:Though the EU certainly has its share of bumps to hammer out, one gets the impression that Europeans do speak with much more of a unified voice than do Americans...which could be an important philosophical and practical issue down the road. I think the main point of contention is going to be EU pride where so many noble cultures all want a piece of the leadership pie. Each country has to figure out where it fits in the machine after centuries of functioning often at hostile tension with those now the dearest of friends. As an outsider, it is fun to watch...esp. the Brits who have gone from Empire to concerns over nearly giving up sovereignty in a matter of decades.
I do have some concerns over, not Europe's motives for no dummy would think they are entirely pure...but I guess I should maybe say drive. I think Europe needs to make sure that they are doing this in good faith so that it is done right. Simply trying to counter the US (or a variety of other less pure issues) merely takes away from the renaissance. I'm cautious about a rather smug Europe that, for good reason, sees itself as the apex of high culture now gathering weapons and armies. As recent news headlines have declared, despite Iraq and whatnot, war is actually on the decline around the world. Why mobilize unless you have to? Though I think Europe's new terror problem is as good as any. And I give Europe credit, they have seen firsthand the destruction of the worst armed conflict...but as that generation dies, will we see a new European militarism as a new generation wants their formational war to go fight? Oddly enough, of all the nations possibly set to become militant, one imagines it would not be the old standby powers of Germany or Britain, but the more old standby of France. That is perhaps a topic for another time though.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 09:00 pm (UTC)From:I'm with you in wonder what exactly the future entails. I would like to be optimistic and think that Americans and Europeans will see their shared interests and only be more powerful together towards those end - including the War on Terror down the road, in the decades to come. It would be nice if they could've done something about Sudan now, instead of needing the US to have to do it when we are obviously overextended.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 09:24 am (UTC)From:I think Europe does realize that for all its brilliance, it needs to put some muscle behind it.
Not so sure a nuclear Saddam, if that ever happened, would have been back in Kuwait. It's a big what if that becomes pointless to discuss when Bush did his bonehead invasion.
One only hopes that whatever form this new war on terror takes down the road that it becomes less and less militant and that unless the US has some serious reforms we get sent to the backseat since we're reckless as the driver.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 09:52 am (UTC)From:I don't know how meaningful it is to talk about the US being sent to the back seat. Whatever Eurocorps might become in the future, I'm sure it's in no position to achieve that result now, lol.
One always hopes for less violence, but...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 10:22 am (UTC)From:I'm not sure Europe really needs to be in a position to forcefully become the future...they may just become the de facto future in the very immediate months ahead. A Bush victory could send the world into more turmoil as people realize that we've got 4 more years of being screwed ahead. Bush victory, in the end, means instability in the world. Instability which has few nations able at this point to even possibly point the direction if we get even further out of it than we are.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 05:25 pm (UTC)From:???
How? As much as this Eurocorps portends well for greater European power in the future, it's still not in a position to take care of its own business in Europe, for years to come. If America should be crippled, one of the disadvantages is that world affairs can then become more rudderless. One has to think that even your elites would like to see some American action in Sudan, which perhaps might've happened already but for being bogged down already!
Even if Kerry wins, I'm afraid there will probably be only more instability. The wars will go on...
I think this is just another dark chapter in our history, regardless of who is president.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 09:47 pm (UTC)From:But mostly, I mean Europe benefits from US policy as it inherits back its tradition of being sort of the Mother Culture. Sure, Americanism is all over, but esp. when it comes to govt., politics, leadership, etc. people are looking less and less to us. We aren't to be trusted while Europe seems more than willing to play a more objective world role where it doesn't see the world through militant eyes, it doesn't view Islam as enemy. One reason it has become a training ground in radical mosques, yes, but Europe also suffers much in terms of terrorist threat because I think Muslims have higher expectations of Europe. Or is that lower expectations of America? LOL
For better or worse, what Europe and America receive in the 21st century is a declining respect for America and the feeling that Europe is more likely to play ball fair...which, personally, I attribute to nothing Europe has done per se other than make solid the EU and gather a very solid philosophical base from which to view the world. Perhaps this is what is underlying our own instability in the US is that we've failed to really find the philosophy for the 21st century because we are locked in a power struggle at home.
For on this point I agree...Kerry or Bush we get more instability. Kerry is better simply because much of the current situation was caused by Bush and removing him gives us a better "street rep." But even before Bush, the US has had a steady stream of bad policy that has certainly contributed to this dark chapter. Which is a shame because we could have done better for ourselves. Objectively, is this maybe a strange dynamic growing in the new era? The US gets treated more harshly in world opinion because of our higher standards while Europe or the post-WWII Japan, say, get a pass because they came out of militarism and are seen as more worldly and recovering still ideologically. While we should have known better all along? I dunno.
America further declining or us somehow guarding against further crippling, I think the rudderless state will continue for quite sometime. War on terror aside, the post-modern age--as Watson points out--does not show any sign of slowing down. Nothing has stepped up to replace it and really I think we may be stuck until something does. Not to sound Monkishly depressing but part of me does fear that the world is going to have to face some WWII level disaster of epic proportions before we shift focus and perhaps unify on broader international levels. I think people currently are just too split on issues of faith, nationalism, etc. around the world to find any sort of meaning in all the clutter Personally, I think the answer is sitting there but as I always say the question is whether humanity has evolved enough yet to function on that level. It may be that it just will take time for the average human being to catch up.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-25 08:36 am (UTC)From:I'll just open this entry for my reaction to such extreme notions. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hardblue/75220.html) In so far as your words reflect something in the Far Left, no wonder liberal Democrats have been losing so much power in these years.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-25 02:24 pm (UTC)From:But let me just say that I don't think terrorists will view Europe as Mother Culture per se. I'm saying that Europe has a greater chance of understanding the dynamics at play in the Muslim world--current attempts at educating the public with this Islamic blitz of info post-9/11 aside. Don't forget, too, that Europe has a larger proportional population of Muslims and a greater history of dealing with Islam, too. It makes for strange goings-on.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-26 12:39 pm (UTC)From:I doubt it. I think you have a tendency to be too dismissive of your countrymen. Our elites have done a fairly good job of making the distinction between the religion and its militant strain, and I think most Americans understand it.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-26 05:25 pm (UTC)From: