Argument: NATO provides the EU with an effective joint military capability

As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea). [1]

[1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.

Candidate 1: "The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1]

[1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship."
Candidate 2: "Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests?

Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless."
Candidate 3: "NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’. [1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy.

[1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia."
Candidate 4: "Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these. [1]

[1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010"
Candidate 5: "NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I."
Candidate 6: "NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO. [1]

[1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011"
Candidate 7: "NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO. [1]

[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011"
Candidate 8: "NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements."

The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows? [1]

[1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.
