December 9, 1999
EUROPE: PLANS FOR 'ESDI,' EU ENLARGEMENT; CONCERNS ABOUT U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE
With EU plans to create a regional defense structure--dubbed the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI)--topping the agenda of recent EU and NATO meetings in Brussels and prominently featured at this week's EU summit in Helsinki, European editorial writers offered their views on its prospects for success. Opinionmakers generally took heart in noting that "European defense is shaping up step-by-step," citing, in particular, moves to integrate the long-dormant Western European Union (WEU) into the EU and to set up a European rapid reaction force that could act independently of U.S.-led NATO. Many also emphasized that bolstering Europe's defenses would provide for a stronger EU pillar within NATO, a necessity driven home by "Europe's military shortcomings in Kosovo." "The toothless tiger is now to get teeth," cheered a Munich paper. That paper joined others in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium in warning, however, that many "pitfalls"--most glaringly, pared down defense budgets--remain in realizing the goal of improved military capabilities for NATO's European partners. To that end, a Berlin paper urged its government to heed Defense Secretary Cohen's "advice" and shore up its defense budget. Some, in fact, doubted that Europe could "match its words with deeds" on coordinating and funding ESDI. Meanwhile, possible enlargement of the EU to include Turkey, also on the agenda in Helsinki, was eagerly anticipated by Ankara's media. Finally, U.S. efforts to convince its NATO counterparts of the merits of a missile defense system--another topic of discussion in Brussels--garnered some reaction, largely skeptical, from European capitals. Highlights follow:
U.S. 'FEARS' ABOUT ESDI: The widespread conviction that Europeans must assume a greater share of the burden for continental security often went hand-in-hand with deep concern in some quarters--notably the British press--that the EU "not alienate NATO," and by extension the U.S., in the process. "A strong Europe is fine...but not if it challenges U.S. supremacy," argued a London daily. Despite Mr. Cohen's "reassuring remarks" in support of ESDI, many perceived that transatlantic "differences" on the "sensitive issue of EU autonomy within NATO" would continue to rankle. The risk posed by ESDI, suggested a British weekly, is that "it may sound provocative enough to alienate prickly Americans...without giving Europeans any serious firepower." The general consensus among writers in Britain, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden was that Europe must take care not to feed into U.S. "fears" that ESDI could "fracture NATO loyalties"--especially since "Europe will continue to depend on U.S. protection" for some time. At this stage, concluded a Brussels pundit, "NATO has nothing to fear," since "the EU is not ready for a military policy of its own: Blair & Company are still too much afraid of a confrontation with both the U.S. and their own taxpayers."
MISSILE DEFENSE WORRIES: The U.S. pitch for missile defense met with skepticism in a few European capitals. The "danger" of "a new U.S. shield," said Belgian and Italian papers, was that "the more secure the Americans feel on their own continent, the greater the U.S. temptation to question its 'solidarity' with Europe." Danish papers expressed divergent views: While one urged its government "to oppose any plan to violate...the ABM Treaty," another argued that, barring Russian disapproval, "there is no reason why Denmark and Greenland cannot place Thule [at the U.S.' disposal] as a contribution to...international security."
EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 46 reports from 13 countries, November 5 - December 9. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Cloudy Horizons At The Summit"
The independent Financial Times observed (12/9): "The EU summit in Helsinki ought to be exhilarating because it will establish the contours of a greatly enlarged EU, capable of flexing its muscles on the world stage. But in typical fashion, the two-day meeting is threatened by spats and crises. Russia's ultimatum to the people of Grozny to quit the Chechen capital by Saturday or face bombardment is a cruel reminder of Europe's inability to influence events in Moscow.... However, the real business at Helsinki concerns EU enlargement: the creation of a bigger, more diverse union, better able to function in a world dominated by the forces of mobile capital and globalization.... Helsinki will demonstrate how far national governments can push the EU forward when they see eye to eye."
"A Real European Defense Strategy Is Needed"
The centrist Independent opined (12/9): "As EU governments prepare to launch an historic defense initiative in Helsinki, one point cannot be over-emphasized. For all the rousing statements of intent by Blair, Schroder and Chirac, defense spending across Europe is, if anything, falling, not least in Germany. This trend must be reversed. Whatever 'peace dividend' arose from the end of the Cold War has long since been exhausted. In vital areas such as command and control, smart weapons technology and, above all, transport, what is needed is simply not there; it must be acquired from scratch."
"Europe Will Shoot Itself In The Foot"
The conservative Daily Telegraph had this op-ed essay by defense analyst Gerald Frost (12/1): "A 'rebalancing' of the European-American relationship implies that a new balance is to be struck, either as a result of Europe doing more, or America less, or perhaps both. But...Europe, which spends half of what America spends as a proportion of national product...has been cutting defense spending.... Thus, the reality is that there is no prospect of a purely European combined arms operation that could deal with a sizeable humanitarian mission of the kind undertaken in Bosnia-Herzegovina, either now or in the future. Sadly, it does not follow that because a European defense capability is incapable of achieving the high hopes of its architects, the attempt to create such a thing is incapable of doing harm. The use of the institutions of Western security and the invention of a new one, as building blocks in the grand European design, have at least two unfortunate consequences: it distracts attention from emerging security threats, such as the spread of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, and it sows the seeds of discord within the Atlantic relationship. Tony Blair...should also be reminded that the past success of NATO rested on two factors: its clarity of mission and the fact that it was given the tools to do its job. The new European defense capability will possess neither advantage."
"Europe Must Prepare To Look After Its Own Defense Interests"
The centrist Independent opined on United States' perceived ambivalence towards European economic and defense integration (11/26): "A strong Europe is fine in so far as it takes weight off the United States' shoulders--but not if it challenges U.S. primacy. Washington talks glowingly of European economic unity, provided, of course, that the euro does not erode the dollar's role as a reserve currency. So, too, it encourages Europe to increase its own defense capabilities--but, it is now warning, not to the point of undermining the primacy of NATO....
"George Robertson and Javier Solana, Atlanticists of impeccable pedigree, hold the key political jobs at NATO and the EU.... Even so, NATO's glue is thinning. No common security threat binds us to the United States. For all the talk of a new cold war, Russia is simply no longer a global rival for the West.... The United States has refused to ratify the test ban treaty and toys with the idea of a national missile defense system, whose consequence inevitably would be further to decouple its security interests from our own."
"Europe, NATO And The Defense Of The Realm"
The conservative tabloid Daily Mail commented (11/26): "What of other EU members? They claim to support a stronger European defense identity. But not one of them is spending the money needed to turn that rhetoric into reality. Indeed, key countries such as Germany are recklessly cutting their defense budgets. Yet Europe proposes a rapid reaction corps when it can't meet its existing commitments. Clearly, the politicians' real motive is not to improve defense, but to advance the cause of a greater Europe. After all, how can the EU become a superstate if it doesn't possess its own nascent army?... Certainly the Americans are worried. Washington fears that NATO...could fragment disastrously. Especially as Britain, once regarded as its most reliable ally, now seems to be leaning towards the French.... The tragedy is that in pursuit of an EU defense chimera, Britain may be dangerously weakened. We could pay a bitter price for New Labor's blind infatuation with Europe."
"The Alliance At Risk"
The liberal Guardian observed (11/24): "Pentagon chiefs have joined politicians like George W. Bush in attacking the inadequacies of Europe's air power and its military forces in general, European political meddling over the direction of the war...and low European defense budgets. This is an old American refrain, but a potent one at this juncture. Europe is being told forcefully to do more to defend itself.... The U.S. plan...has seriously alarmed the European NATO Allies. France and Germany see it as a step towards an American unilateralism which could fatally undermine NATO's founding concept of common defense. On the European side, the pressures that may one day fracture NATO loyalties are also building. They emanate principally from the growing momentum behind the EU's latest grand design--in the jargon, a European defense identity. To put it mildly, this scheme is driving the Americans nuts. Although Europe can say that it is simply doing more to defend itself, as asked, the United States is deeply suspicious about where it all may lead. These strains are certain to intensify rather than diminish in the months ahead."
"Euro-Defense"
The independent Financial Times held (11/24): "These are crucial days for Europe's defense ambitions. Spurred by Europe's military shortcomings in Kosovo, there is now a drive, led by Britain and France, to create a European rapid reaction corps. The plan is for a force capable of taking peacekeeping and crisis management missions, without necessarily involving all of NATO. In general, the United States applauds the British-French initiative, because for almost the first time European defense ambitions have focused on military substance rather than institutional niceties, and are no longer, even in France, overtly anti-NATO. But Washington would like to see the EU commit itself more clearly to giving NATO a 'right of first refusal' in any given crisis. Since in any operation of its own, the EU would be largely using NATO assets, it seems fair that it should fully consult the United States in NATO first."
"EU Turns Its Attention From Ploughshares To Swords"
The independent weekly Economist observed (11/20): "Post-Kosovo Europe is sounding keen on a joint defense force that is less reliant on America. Its actions have yet to match its words....
"This week [the EU]...held a full conclave of defense and foreign ministers.... No declarations of war...were issued. But neither was any serious objection raised to the idea of developing a rapid reaction corps which would act at the EU's behest in crises that were too big to ignore but not big enough to demand [U.S.] involvement, and therefore of NATO.... So the way is now clear for European heads of government to sound the bugle for stronger defense when they meet in Helsinki.... Once procedural move has been agreed to already. Javier Solana, the EU's new foreign policy chief, will also be put in charge of the ten-nation WEU...which the larger body is expected to swallow up.... The EU and NATO should start work immediately to agree upon a division of labor.... Anything like European self-sufficiency in defense is a long way off, to put it mildly. But there is a possibility that the EU's groping into the defense field will nevertheless make a difference, in the worst possible way. It may sound provocative enough to alienate prickly Americans, without giving Europeans any serious extra firepower."
FRANCE: "European Defense: The Kosovo Effect"
Pierre Beyleau judged in right-of-center weekly Le Point (12/3): "In Helsinki, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and maybe Spain and Belgium, will introduce a joint document on how to plan for operations in Europe to be conducted independently of NATO.... A European defense, in spite of the progress made in the thinking phase, still remains a long-term endeavor. The leveling of operational capabilities, require financial efforts which no one is ready to make. The United States shies away from anything that might eat into NATO's monopoly and thus weaken its cohesion and its transatlantic ties. The Pentagon refuses to hear anything about an autonomous European defense. Nevertheless, in spite of everything, the idea is progressing, thanks to the war in Kosovo, which served as a detonator."
"The Franco-British Engine"
Baudoin Bollaert maintained in right-of-center Le Figaro (11/26): "For the first time, France and Great Britain are on the same wavelength.... So much so that Chirac spoke of a 'Franco-British engine for defense.'... In their joint press release, Chirac and Blair are asking the European Council of Helsinki to take the 'decisive step' toward developing Europe's military capabilities...and the 'implementation of political and military instruments' to serve it.... Chirac reiterated that they did not want 'to undermine NATO in any way...but to reinforce it.'"
GERMANY: "Turkey's Status Question"
In right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger commented (12/9): "Only a few days before the EU summit...the EU Commission is suggesting--rather late--the need to think about Europe's borders.... Everybody knows that Turkey does not fulfill a single criteria to join the EU...and Turkey will not manage to do so in the next ten, 20 or 30 years.... But that is not the core of the problem. The problem is that Turkey is at best a Euro-Asian country whose political and social system contributes very little or not at all to the grand project of unifying Europe. It is understandable that Europe wants to get some tactical relief by throwing the ball into Turkey's court. But Turkey's fury and disappointment are already pre-programmed for the time when its joy over the hoped-for increase in prestige vanishes."
"Cohen's Advice"
Michael Stuermer opined in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (12/7): "Nothing is so bad for illusions as reality. While EU defense ministers...develop plans for a rapid reaction force, U.S. Secretary of Defense Cohen says openly what so far has only been said in NATO Council meetings.... [That is] that the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, don't have some of life's necessities. The subtext is that there are cracks in NATO, and the Germans cannot be counted on when it comes to serious operations....
"The missions in Bosnia and now in Kosovo were only possible with the utmost of effort; equipment is rarely modernized; and soon, the soldiers will be younger than the equipment they man. At the same time, the Americans, while reducing the number of troops on active service, have undertaken, and continue to undertake, a tremendous effort to modernize their armed forces.... A European rapid reaction force that is not of the highest standard is irresponsible. The German government must learn, now, that the time for illusions is over."
"The European Pillar"
Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12/7) carried a commentary by Guenter Nonnenmacher: "One of the successes of this week's EU summit in Helsinki that is already apparent is the chapter entitled 'EU Common Security Policy.' After decades of discussion, for the first time decisions will be made, measures and plans undertaken--evidence that the Europeans are getting serious... The precondition for this was that the United States, despite some concern about details, agrees in principle to a European pillar in NATO and France gives up its pointless efforts to separate European defense from the Alliance. Also of importance were the change of mind of the Blair government and the changed situation in Germany.... Nevertheless, there is still no reason to either hope or expect that Europe will be able to bear responsibility for its own defense tomorrow. Just how things are supposed to be coordinated with the United States...still has to be worked out. And the fact that Berlin has put the Bundeswehr on a diet...is having a disastrous effect."
"The Muscles Of The WEU"
Michael Stuermer remarked in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (12/2): "What Brussels calls the ESDI makes sense and is logical. However, time will tell whether Javier Solana will be a ruler without land or turn into an effective head for European security. Three conditions will be decisive: The Europeans must match their words with deeds; those who take part in ESDI must understand what a 'muscular' foreign policy means; and the balance in NATO must be coordinated between the United States and NATO.... Now everything depends on bringing into harmony the strengthening of Europe's security with the new equilibrium between the United States and Europe. Washington has always called upon the Europeans to organize themselves, but, at the same time, it warned [the Europeans] against forming their own club. The United States is fully engaged in the Far East and the Middle East, and its resources are stretched to the limit. Another reason why it is high time for European security. But this requires more detailed work, greater courage and more money.... If transatlantic relations can be put on a sound foundation, Europe can gain from the security policy...[whose] time...has finally come."
"European Ambition"
Guenter Nonnenmacher commented on ESDI in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12/1): "The governments in London, Paris, Berlin and Rome have now joined forces, and this is enough to give the whole matter a new momentum.... But the will is not enough. Words must be matched with deeds. For a long time, we have heard that one wants to set up criteria for defense budgets.... If something like that could be achieved, the transition from paper to the real world would have been accomplished."
"The Struggle About Defense"
Peter Munch judged in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/26): "In the United States, the vehemently raised demand for a stronger participation of the Europeans in burden-sharing has changed all of a sudden into a clear warning against unilateral European moves. The reason is that Washington had always advocated a strengthening of the 'European pillar' in NATO.
"But now Washington is watching in an irritated way how the Europeans are trying to bundle their forces outside of NATO. The concern of the Americans is understandable, but premature. Even if the Europeans went their own way, they would be unable to do so. All plans for independent military activities are ailing, because the finance ministers set different priorities than the defense strategists.... This means that Europe continues to remain dependent on the global power. However, the U.S. fear is stirred up by the French.... While the other partners are taking efforts to dispel fears of the Clinton administration, the Paris government is pouring salt into the wound by emphasizing the independence of the Europeans. This is why Washington's slogan is: Nip things in the bud. And for the Europeans this means that it will be even more difficult to get out of its infancy."
"The Same Old American Story"
Guenter Nonnenmacher contended in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (11/26): "(With respect to European defense), the Europeans have achieved progress in their special field: the juggling with institutions. The WEU, which has thus far slumbered in the empire of symbols is now to be merged with the EU.... But as soon as there is progress in European defense matters, the Americans get nervous. Emissaries from Washington and U.S. ambassadors to Europe are saying that European efforts should by no means undermine NATO. This distrust is mainly directed against the government in Paris. The insinuation is that the French government is trying to undermine NATO. This is the same old story we hear again and again--the last complaint referred to the establishment of the Eurocorps."
"WEU In For Rude Awakening"
Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten argued (11/24): "All the demands that Europe must master its crises all by itself, have failed for two reasons: a lack of common will and an insufficient military operationability. At the EU meeting, the Europeans demonstrated a surprising determination to fill the catchphrase of 'European security and defense identity' with life. The Western European Union, a military organization which nobody has really taken seriously since the '50s, is facing a rude awakening. It is to step out of NATO's shadow and to merge with the EU. But as laudable as this structural step is, it does not change the enormous gap [between the armed forces of the EU states and the United States with regard to] logistical and technical means."
"Teeth For The Tiger"
Andreas Oldag opined in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/23): "Step by step, Europe is heading for a common security policy. At the meeting of EU foreign and defense ministers, the issue is the integration of the WEU into the EU.... The toothless tiger is now to get teeth.... But this plan cannot be realized as quickly as some politicians are now imagining...since the WEU is by no means as strong as military organization as NATO.... Instead of discussing institutional questions of how the WEU can be merged with the EU, the Europeans should center first of all on the main problems of their future security policy: the strengthening of their military capacities for crisis intervention. Cuts in defense budgets have resulted in a drastic cut in their procurement programs, and a rapid reaction force depends on advanced satellite surveillance as well as on wide-body aircraft--something the Europeans do not have."
"A Necessary Move"
Nikolaus Blome told readers of right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (11/16): "For the first time, the EU member states make clear that their defense policy will be verifiable.... But they are also testing the Americans who constantly call upon the Europeans to show a greater engagement but are...afraid of such a move because it could question the undisputable U.S. dominance.
"But the United States would be well-advised to let the Europeans have their way. Germany and Great Britain will guarantee that a quick reaction force will not turn into a competitor for NATO but into its new trump card. The Kosovo war showed how necessary it is."
ITALY: "European Army Is Born"
Provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio opined (12/9): "The political and strategic axis on which the future European armed forces will rotate will be the one unifying Washington and London more and more closely, based on the development of a double track of the ESDI doctrine--providing for greater European weight in NATO operations, and the establishment of an independent EU force capable of managing regional crises.... Cohen gave his diplomatic approval...to the EU initiative and the agreements committing UK, France, Germany and Italy to represent the main backbone of the European army.... The real challenge for many European partners, beginning with Italy, is to take on a pragmatic attitude towards defense issues and to accompany words with political initiatives and financial installments.... In Helsinki...a document will be approved which will increase the operational capabilities of European defense but which, at least for some years, will be...inserted into the NATO structure and which will be based mainly on Anglo-American business relations."
"Space Scud, Part Two"
Giulietto Chiesa maintained in centrist, influential La Stampa (12/9): "Last Thursday in Brussels, Defense Secretary Cohen poured out to his NATO Allies all the U.S. arguments to convince Europe of the need to give the West a missile umbrella.... We should raise some questions. The first one is: providing that the situation is the one suggested by the U.S. administration, is the anti-missile scud really the right answer?... Second, the problem of 'variable geometry security' remains. The solution proposed by Washington seems designed more to provide security for the U.S. continent rather Europe. And this would, therefore, create problems in the Alliance's solidarity.... In any case, the most striking factor in this initial debate is Washington's choice...[guarantee] security exclusively through force, even at the cost of creating great damage within the international community and, in particular, toward those countries...which today already have a frightening force, Russia and China.... Indeed, unilaterally cancelling the ABM Treaty would mean definitively closing the era of disarmament negotiations.... Do we want to go that route? Perhaps. But Europe should...conduct an evaluation of the whole matter before heading toward a policy line that, assuredly, would not make it safer and that would force it, even more than now, within the framework of the outlines and restraints of U.S. national interests."
"Missile Defense"
Francesco Manacorda filed from Brussels in centrist, influential La Stampa (12/4): "The Italian defense minister is very interested in Washington's opening regarding the anti-missile defense system.... The sore point, however, is the cost possibly involved in this project.... But not all of the NATO Allies seem to share Italy's enthusiasm for Washington's initiative and its possible extension to Europe. France, for example."
"America's Reassuring Remarks"
Enrico Brivio noted from Brussels in leading, business Il Sole-24 Ore (12/3): "A significant exchange of reassuring remarks took place yesterday between the United States and Europe on the future of transatlantic defense. The EU governments received Defense Secretary Cohen's positive comments on the possibility of speeding up the creation of a European intervention force, along the lines of the initiative agreed to by France, Germany, the UK and Italy. From the American front also came reassuring remarks that the Europeans will be consulted on anti-missile defense....
"Yesterday's meeting helped overcome reciprocal mistrust on the two sides of the Atlantic. Even if...we should wait for the...meeting in Helsinki to get a clearer picture of the European defense initiative and more precise comments by the Americans. However, the feeling is that the experience of the intervention in Kosovo has somehow removed the traditional American skepticism about an autonomous European initiative.... Indeed, differences of opinion remain between the United States and Europe, especially on the weight and level of autonomy that a European army should have."
"An End To Rumors, But Concerns Remain"
Andrea Bonanni filed from Brussels in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (12/3): "So, Defense Secretary Cohen put an end to rumors concerning the alleged U.S. fear of the creation of a European defense which should take some first steps at the Helsinki summit.... Indeed, concerns and nuances remain concerning the interpretation of the real nature of the European defense.... On the one side there are those, such as the French, who underline its political meaning. On the other side, the United States stresses that the new forces should be nothing more than a way to strike a new balance of the European contribution to the Alliance."
RUSSIA: "Washington Torpedoes The 'Paper Tiger'"
Yuri Kovalenko made this observation from Paris in reformist Novye Izvestia (11/26): "The U.S. administration is worried that the EU's forming its own defense system might damage the trans-Atlantic cooperation within the NATO framework. But the strong pressure by Washington is being resisted first of all on the banks of the Seine where they do not want the EU's military initiatives to be dependent on an American veto.... Whatever the case, despite all the grand plans to create an independent defense and first class armed forces, the European countries remain incapable of carrying out a big military operation without active U.S. leadership. In particular, this was demonstrated by the recent intervention in Kosovo.... Militarily analysts stress, Europe still remains a 'paper tiger.'"
AUSTRIA: "Europe No Longer Wants To Be Tied To America's Apron Strings"
Helmut L. Müller front-paged this comment in independent Salzburger Nachrichten (12/9): "For decades, one could hear on both sides of the Atlantic that the Western Alliance should rest on two pillars. But reality was different: The United States set the tone, and the Europeans were tied to America's apron strings. Although the United States pushes its little brother to bear a larger portion of the defense burden, it regards too much European autonomy with distrust. The Americans continue to count on a strengthening of a 'European pillar' within NATO. For the United States views itself as a 'European power,' and NATO serves as an instrument to secure American influence in Europe. And there is also money involved.... If the EU actually became a military power with its own defense projects, the Americans would fear to lose lucrative armament deals. But...at present, the Europeans have enormous deficits in many important military sectors. As a consequence, the European strike force would be able to cope with smaller crises or tasks of peace enforcement at best; a war like that in Kosovo, however, would be several sizes too big for this miniature European army. In spite of ambitious plans, the Europeans will continue to depend on U.S. protection for quite a while."
BELGIUM: "The European Union And Its Security Identity"
Independent Le Soir (12/9) ran this op-ed piece by Adre Dumoulin: "The objective for Europe is to replace its collective powerlessness, its follow-the- leader attitude, and its nice official declarations by a clear policy, by creating, in the long term, a united policy in the field of diplomacy, doctrine, and common weapons in the European Union.... It seems, since Cologne, that it is politically, legally, and psychologically, ready to speak about defense....
"Behind the three possible options--priority to the convergence of diplomacy, of the military means, or of the democratic values--will Europe have the political will to act autonomously at a time when the tragic experience in the Balkans seems to have convinced the europeans of the need of a common security policy? But there are still three pitfalls before the Europeans can really reach a strategic autonomy. The first one is budgetary constraints.... Secondly, institutional and operational trans-Atlantic tensions will become more visible when Europe will inevitably duplicate some of the tools which the Americans 'put at the Alliance's disposal.' Third, the EU will remain cornered between its various directorates--where the actual decisions are made--and NATO, where the supremacy of the United States and of the big countries makes a truly common policy illusory. No doubt the question of the ESDI remains hauntingly posed in the new Euro-Atlantic landscape, which has a hard time reconciling the need to reinforce the European pillar with the need to accept trans-Atlantic compromise solutions."
"The Sensitive Issue Of EU Autonomy Within NATO"
Referring to a confidential paper on European defense drafted by France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, diplomatic correspondent Pierre Lefevre wrote in independent Le Soir (12/2): "The paper carefully specifies the relations of this body with NATO, especially since the latter will, in most cases, be asked to supply military means to the Europeans. But the EU wants to be able to conduct its own operations, without the other Allies' approval.... The question of greater EU autonomy within NATO is one of the most sensitive in this debate, not only between the EU and the United States, but also among Europeans themselves. And it is not solved."
"Europe Wants An Army"
Paul Goossens opined in liberal weekly Knack (12/2): "It is no surprise that the European leaders are now talking about defense and an army of their own; they have done that for forty years. However, this time it is more than an upsurge of European naughty boys against the Americans, especially because the initiative is this time coming not from the French, but from the British.... All the advocates of an EU intervention force...emphasize that NATO has nothing to fear. Nothing will change in the collective defense of Europe and even Chirac declared that the Alliance will even be better off. Those nice words are aimed at soothing Washington.... The Americans are not really assured.... The Pentagon fears that the European 'peace corps' may spark new dynamics in Europe's defense industry.... The question is whether the EU will indefinitely accept American military supremacy or try to fill the enormous gap. All the government leaders are extremely ambiguous about that and do not dare to formulate the real ante in this struggle for power. They want to displease neither the Americans nor their national taxpayers. Europe can fill the gap only if the defense budget is increased substantially.... The creation of a corps is...a signal to the Americans that the current Atlantic balance is no longer tenable. At this stage, the EU is not ready for a military policy of its own: Blair & Company are still too much afraid of a confrontation with both the U.S. and their own taxpayers."
"A European Army?"
Diplomatic correspondent Pierre Lefevre noted in independent Le Soir (11/22): "A key question of the Helsinki Summit will be the size which the EU wants to give to its future military staff. If it remains limited to about fifty people, like in the WEU, any sizeable operation will have to be managed by SHAPE, NATO's military command in Europe. The more the European military staff will be developed, the better it will be able to conduct its own operations. The British and French are talking about a European force of between 40,000 and 60,000 troops, to be operational by 2002 or 2003. This is the size of the force currently required in Kosovo, and this European force might take over from the KFOR. The discussions will also be tense on the 'convergence criteria' of the Fifteen to improve their military capabilities. This will have serious budgetary consequences and is politically sensitive, since it concerns national sovereignties."
"EU Ministers Agree On Genuine European Army"
Frank Schloemer maintained in independent De Morgen (11/16): "The EU wants to establish a rapid military reaction force to address crises on its own. That way, the EU would, for the first time, have a genuine military arm at its disposal. That was heard yesterday during the meeting of the foreign and defense ministers in Brussels. All EU member states agree that next month, decisions must be made at the EU summit in Helsinki.... Plans for a European army are causing concern among the Americans. At the moment, Washington has a de facto right of veto over every military action of NATO--inside and outside Europe.... In the United States, some even say that Europe 'is secretly creating an army.'"
"An Alliance Divided"
Foreign editor Axel Buyse observed in independent Catholic De Standaard (11/13): "A deep division is developing in the Alliance between Washington and the European partners. The main cause is the U.S. plan to go ahead with the building of a 'shield' against incoming intercontinental missiles--against the explicit desire of Russia, China, and the Western European countries. Such a new U.S. shield may be directed, as Washington claims, against rogue states like North Korea, but it is also a fact that not only the Russians, but also the Chinese will be tempted to build or adapt their own missiles systems. Behind that plan lies an even greater danger. The more secure the Americans feel on their own continent, the greater the U.S. temptation to question its 'solidarity' with Europe."
DENMARK: "Continued U.S. Engagement Necessary"
Center-left Politiken commented (11/28): "Even though changes are being made in the European defense arena, Europe will not have the capacity to deal single-handedly with conflicts like Kosovo for many years to come. For this reason alone, continued U.S. engagement in Europe is a necessity."
"We Should Not Play Partner To U.S Political Games"
Center-left Politiken commented (11/6): "Only three weeks ago, EU leaders appealed to the United States to reconsider the Senate's decision not to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty. Last week, Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen...promised the chairman of the Greenland Home Rule Committee, Jonathan Motzfeldt, that he would have some degree of influence [in the negotiations] if the United States goes ahead with plans to upgrade its radar system in Thule. This would represent either a violation or a watering-down of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Both episodes show that Washington is dog-tired of binding itself to international agreements.... Petersen ought to oppose any plan to violate or alter the ABM Treaty--no matter whether it involves the Thule base or not. Officially, the United States says that the missile defense system would be aimed at protecting the United States against rogue states...[but], just like the rejection of the test ban treaty, the nuclear defense [issue] is clearly a part of the [U.S.] political [game] ahead of the presidential election.... Denmark has absolutely no interest in playing the role of a partner in this game. We should say 'no' now."
"Star Wars"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende editorialized (11/5): "Most experts agree that threats from rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea will be one of the most important challenges in the area of nuclear policy.... If Washington does not continue to develop counter-measures, other [states] will make attempts [to utilize their weapons].... The Danish government has chosen to take a sensible position. The foreign minister has decided to ignore calls to start flexing Denmark's nonexistent muscles.... In addition, Greenland has also acted with good sense...by highlighting the importance of Russian approval [to ABM revisions].
"If Russia gives its approval, there is no reason why Denmark and Greenland cannot place Thule [at the U.S.' disposal] as a contribution to international peace and security. We have done so before and we ought to do so again--this time in the open."
HUNGARY: "Our Opportunities In Europe"
Laszlo Daroczi opined in right-of-center Napi Magyarorszag (12/6): "While [Hungary] has, at the moment, no chance to participate in the shaping of the EU, another area of Euro-Atlantic integration, security and defense policy, offers compensation: it seems we will have important roles to play in this field. We are likely to hear a lot about plans and concepts about the establishment of a...joint European defense force, and they will probably also outline the assistance this force would receive from NATO in case of actions the United States does not wish to participate in. This is still in the...future."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Summit Brims Over With Controversial Issues"
Amsterdam's liberal-left De Volkskrant's foreign editor wrote (12/9): "'We don't ask the Americans...if they would perhaps like to add Mexico as the 51st state to the Untied States. Well, what we have done for Turkey is much more than what Washington has done for Mexico.' The top level EU diplomat is angry: He is being pressured regularly by his American colleagues to expand and accelerate the difficult process of expansion that the EU is experiencing. For example, Madeleine Albright this week declared that the EU should not only admit Turkey immediately, but that countries such as Ukraine and Moldova should also join forthwith. 'The people who hold such opinions think that the EU is nothing more than a free trade zone. Well, that is incorrect. The Union is much more than that,' added the diplomat."
"ESDI"
Influential, liberal De Volkskrant ran this editorial (11/18): "The war in Kosovo was an American war.... The European Allies were not capable of sending more than two percent of their armed forces to the Balkans.... These figures are shameful for Europe. The Europeans themselves are not able to maintain stability in their region. That is the reason why they leave the Americans to do the dirty job on the continent.... The French may complain about American hegemony, but the fact is that Europe would be a lot less safe without that hegemony. The United States can do without Europe, but Europe cannot do without the United States. Many Europeans and even Americans think that this should change.... While the French advocate a greater degree of European military independence, the British would like to see NATO and the U.S. leadership maintained as the core of European defense.... One should hope that the French and the British will manage to set up a fruitful cooperation in which Europe will become a strong unity in the area of defense, without affecting the role of NATO and the ties with the United States."
SWEDEN: "EU As A Military Actor"
Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter ran this lead editorial (11/24): "Intense work is going on prior to the EU Summit in Helsinki...to develop an EU crisis management capability.... Europe must not once again be paralyzed in a crisis in its own region, and the Kosovo experience has hastened deliberation. Many have expressed concern that increased EU integration would exclude the United States and reduce NATO's role. One understands their concern, although it seems exaggerated. The EU will be a complement not a competitor to NATO.... The EU has every reason to safeguard the transatlantic link. U.S. engagement in Europe is to everyone's benefit.... [But] the EU must be able to act when there is a fire in its own backyard."
"The EU Must Not Alienate NATO"
Conservative Svenska Dagbladet had this lead editorial (11/22): "Not even Sweden had any objections last week when the defense and foreign ministers of the EU voiced support for the French-British proposal to equip the union with a sufficient military capability.... The key words related to their decision were the option for 'independent action,' and the ghosts the EU's repeated failures to take action during the many crises in Europe in 1991-1995.... Each time the EU must, in the end, rely on NATO and a reluctant United States. Behind the EU's willingness to establish its own forces...there are concerns that the United States will not always be prepared to serve as Europe's cat's paw in conflicts which do not directly involve U.S. security interests.... Although it would be a good idea to try to find a means for intervention somewhere between European passiveness and full-scale American engagement, there are great risks involved in the establishment of a European task force. The most obvious one is that a European attempt to achieve military self-sufficiency might encourage...a lower degree of American engagement in Europe...while, at the same time, not providing Europe with the necessary fire power or the proper defense capability.... Should the establishment of a European task force result in the weakening of the Atlantic ties, and the freezing out of European NATO members who are not members of the EU--Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Iceland and Norway--it may impair Europe's as well as Sweden's security. That would be too high a price for our country to pay...to continue to stay outside NATO."
TURKEY: "Ankara's Helsinki Excitement"
Bilal Cetin wrote in intellectual Radikal (12/9): "Ankara is worried that Turkish-EU relations might worsen if, at the Helsinki summit, Turkey is required to adhere to some special conditions that were not required from other EU candidates. Turkey seems ready to make political, economic, and social reforms necessitated by the full membership process. Ankara has the political determination to make legal amendments for democratization, human rights and the prevention of torture.... If the EU arrives at a positive decision at the summit, Turkey might even remove the death penalty from its legislation. The coalition government must display determination for democratization and human rights, and thus improve Turkey's record."
"EU"
Yilmaz Oztuna wrote a front page editorial in conservative/religious Turkiye (12/8): "We all are expecting a positive result regarding Turkey's candidacy at the Helsinki summit.... Such a positive response will carry with it a series of conditions given to Turkey to fulfill.... The more we comply with the norms, the faster Turkey's full membership will be."
"Perception And Progress"
Semih Idiz wrote in the tabloid Star (12/8): "President Demirel's recent statement on Turkey's obligation to comply with EU rules and regulations marks a very important step for Turkey's future.... Even nationalist and religious figures in Turkish politics seem to be changing their rhetoric, and taking a position closer to Europe."
"Turkey And The WEU"
Semih Idiz wrote in tabloid Star (11/24): "Turkey insists that non-EU NATO member countries should be fully represented in the ESDI, an idea which is supported by the United States as well.... Turkish Foreign Minister Cem clearly stated that Turkey's contribution to the ESDI would be compatible with the authority given to Turkey in this initiative.... In the meantime, it looks like the Europeans realized one fact very well: Turkey cannot be left out of European defense."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "European Defense Not Expected To Progress"
Abdel Azim Hammad observed in pro-government Al Ahram (11/29): "The independent European defense initiative is expected to top the summit agenda in Helsinki. However, the project is not expected to progress. Europeans have moved this time under the pressure of an American warning that the United States will not repeat the Kosovo experience by bearing the largest burden in a European role. However...American strategic [thinkers] continue to reject a strong European role, which could challenge U.S. supremacy.... Europe is not politically ready yet, even though it can establish an independent defense system. Britain and France, the only nuclear powers in Europe...have no unified strategic belief to the present.... Germany prefers to be under American nuclear umbrella.... Despite the successful European march for unity, conflicting interests continue to exist.... This means that the European defense system will not exist unless the United States becomes unable to bear the costs of its leadership in the world."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Department of State
Office of Research
Telephone: (202) 619-6511
10/29/99
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
