SECURITY & DEFENCE
It's high time the EU and NATO worked shoulder to shoulder
Spring 2010
Afghanistan and Kosovo are worrying examples of the inefficiencies created by the impasse in relations between the EU and NATO. Soren Gade Jensen, Denmark’s Defence Minister, makes the case for improved cooperation between the two, leading to a more effective and comprehensive approach
The security threats of today’s globalised world are too complex to be handled by any one nation, or even by a single international organisation. International terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failed states and fragile ones, the consequences of climate change, and cyber attacks all require closer cooperation and an armoury of civil and military responses. Effective multilateral cooperation is going to be in great demand.
Almost 116,000 people at present serve in 17 peacekeeping operations led by the UN, which is an eightfold increase in UN peacekeepers since 1999. The UN is tightly stretched, and increasingly is turning towards other organisations for cooperation, just as was intended in the UN Charter.
|
Advertisement
|
The EU and NATO are among the important actors, but unfortunately the relationship between the two has too often been seen as a zero-sum game – what’s good for one is bad for the other – and to some extent that’s still the case. Yet rational analysis shows that this is nonsense. The EU and NATO relationship should instead be seen as a win-win endeavour, in which cooperation benefits both organisations.
Although both the EU and NATO have achieved important steps forward in recent years, there is still a surprising need to explain why a close relationship between them is so necessary. It seems obvious to me that closer EU and NATO cooperation is vital if we are to more effectively address today's security threats and conduct effective crisis management operations.
The consequence of the current impasse in the relations between EU and NATO is that resources are not used in the best possible way. Yet 21 nations are members of both organisations and all their members have common objectives and share the same values.
The sensitivities the relationship suffers from are well-known. But the strong support given by the U.S. to making the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) more capable, combined with France’s reintegration into NATO, and now the Lisbon treaty, add more ingredients to a political recipe that could lead to improved EU-NATO cooperation. Now is the time for a fresh start.
In many of the peace support operations being conducted around the world, we have seen a shift towards more robust military engagements in unstable environments, and also an increasing number of multi-faceted and hybrid operations where military and civilian capabilities are being deployed at the same time. It has become very clear that military capability is far from offering the only solution to many of the crises we now face. You may win a war with military means, but you cannot win the peace.
To obtain positive results in the shortest possible time, military efforts need to be embedded in an overall strategy which also spans political, diplomatic, civilian, humanitarian, and development efforts. This comprehensive approach is what is needed, and will continue to be a Danish priority.
Working together, the EU and NATO could – along with UN, the African Union and others – contribute efficiently to the application of a genuine comprehensive approach. So far, the practical implementation of the comprehensive approach has primarily focused on the interaction on the ground between military units, civilian experts and humanitarian organisations. Experience has shown that there is a need for a more integrated approach on a political level as well as on an operational planning level. Military and civilian engagements should be planned and carried out in a much more synchronised and dynamic manner, rather than in a coordinated, but sequential and separate way.
Enhancing the EU-NATO relationship would be a very important element in taking the whole concept of the comprehensive approach much further than has been the case so far. But the unfortunate reality is that a lack of clarity surrounds both organisations’ cooperation mechanisms. This is especially true of situations where the EU is engaged with a civilian mission in an area where NATO is conducting military operations, at present Afghanistan and Kosovo. This lack of clarity limits possibilities for efficient cooperation, and thus the prospect of a more comprehensive approach.
We face many challenges in Afghanistan. Most EU and NATO countries are contributing military forces to the ISAF mission. It is a tough job being carried out under strenuous conditions. A crucial part of the comprehensive approach in Afghanistan is to build up and strengthen the capacity of the Afghan security forces and institutions. Without law and order Afghanistan will not be stable and without stability there can be no development.
The potential for EU and NATO cooperation in Afghanistan is obvious. Afghanistan is in many ways a test case for EU-NATO cooperation on the ground. That means we have to cooperate wherever and whenever conditions necessitate it and when it makes sense – not just where we find it convenient. The EU and NATO urgently need to improve their cooperation in Afghanistan because results on the ground will improve the chances of long-term success, and will at the same time strengthen the transatlantic dialogue.
The political choices open to European nations should never be reduced to being between the EU and NATO. We need both organisations. NATO is the cornerstone of our collective defence, and is also a forum for transatlantic dialogue, a framework for international operations and a driver for Europe’s defence transformation. At the same time, the EU has emerged as a serious security actor, not just regionally but also globally. The EU has proven its value in a number of civilian and military operations, and I expect it to further develop its military and civilian crisis management capabilities in the years ahead. With the UN’s increased “outsourcing” of peacekeeping missions to regional organisations, the demand for EU crisis management tools will surely increase. The bottom line is that the EU as well as NATO will continue to be an essential framework for international crisis management operations. Combining the tools at the disposal of the EU and NATO would open the way to truly efficient multilateral cooperation in these operations.
We cannot disregard the well-known sensitivities that exist in the EU-NATO relationship. We have to do much more to move ahead and break the current stalemate. We owe it to the men and woman who already contribute so much effort to existing EU and NATO operations. They risk their lives to help alleviate critical situations in hotspots and crisis zones around the world, and their tasks could be made a little easier if we were to take a number of practical initiatives.
We should promote and pursue initiatives in the area of synchronised defence planning. A synchronised and parallel planning process in the two organisations would be an advantage for member states in their national planning processes. It would also bring greater clarity as to what resources are actually available for either EU or NATO operations. We cannot disregard the fact that we only have one set of forces.
We should also pursue initiatives for the common acquisition of equipment where there are critical shortfalls. The financial and economic crisis has seen cuts in the defence budgets of many European countries, so resources are increasingly scarce, and capacities like transport helicopters are very expensive. Multinational solutions are an important tool for overcoming these critical shortfalls in both current and future operations. Why do the same job at the same time in two different organisations, when 21 nations are members of both? The EU-NATO Capability Group offers a very good platform for enhancing this.
There is an obvious room for improving EU-NATO relations and cooperation. The steps needed to do so can be pragmatic, informal or ad hoc. It is not so much a question of launching yet another initiative, it is about political will. We Europeans need to generate the political will needed to ensure the relationship between EU and NATO better matches the security realities of the 21st century. |
|
You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.
|
|
|
| |