The EU and NATO and the Lisbon Treaty

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The EU and NATO and the Lisbon Treaty The EU, NATO and the Lisbon Treaty: still divided within a common city Prepared for The European Union Studies Association Conference 3-5 March 2011 Boston, Massachusetts Dr Simon Duke Professor, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht Ph: +0031 43 3296356 E-mail: [email protected] DRAFT ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT CITE. COMMENTS WELCOME. Keywords: EU, NATO, strategy, defence, collective security, human security, CSDP, Lisbon Treaty, mutual assistance, solidarity clause, permanent structured cooperation There is a gap between image and reality when it comes to EU-NATO relations. Both organizations talk, sometimes surreally, of their mutual importance to one another yet this often belies the actual reality of their relations. The EU insists that the continuing development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is essential to the Union‟s aspirations to be a global actor and key strategic partner. Meanwhile, NATO‟s recent and well-publicized New Strategic Concept underlined not only the virility of the Alliance in its middle age, but also its ability to assume new challenges and thus enhance its relevance. The definition of relations between the two organizations is an ongoing and sensitive issue. This contribution will consider the extent to which the EU‟s Lisbon Treaty promotes partnership between the EU and NATO or whether it merely highlights existing incongruence. The analysis is based on the treaty text but also relies upon associated documents, statements of senior officials, academic and think tank contributions. The debates that took place within the Convention on the Future of Europe are particularly relevant since they offer a perspective on the intentions of the treaty framers behind the words. Although there are many dimensions that could directly or indirectly influence EU-NATO relations, this analysis limits itself to three specific treaty-based aspects that are seen as of core importance to the future of mutual relations. The first is the extent to which the Lisbon Treaty contributes to the formation of a compelling strategic direction for the EU and, by implication, what type of partner (or competitor) the EU may become. The recent unveiling of NATO‟s New Strategic Concept (NSC) is also analyzed alongside the relevant EU treaty text in order to establish the extent to which there is strategic complementarity. The second broad theme goes beyond the general security heading, which touches on the missions of both the EU and NATO, considers three inter-related terms – collective defence, mutual aid and assistance and the solidarity clause. Together the terms have been portrayed, correctly or incorrectly, as constituting a reorientation of the EU‟s security role. This section will consider the three clauses, their meanings and linkages, and whether or not they should be construed as an emerging competitive element between (and possibly within) the organisations. 1 The third area to be examined considers the perennial resource issue, which feature heavily in the CSDP aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. Two related aspects, outlined in the treaty, are of special relevance – Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA). The former is often portrayed as one of the significant developments of the Lisbon Treaty and, if the aspirations behind PESCO develop into reality, this will indeed have important positive knock-on effects for the EU and NATO. There are though, as argued below, many hurdles along PESCO‟s course. The Lisbon Treaty reinforces the EDA‟s role as well as the political importance attached to the Agency‟s mission. The wisdom of doing so, especially when the fundamental powers of the agency remain limited, will be assessed. The conclusions argue that the Lisbon Treaty does little to actually change CSDP, or to fundamentally realign EU-NATO relations. The changes introduced by the treaty either codify existing changes in practice (such as the expanded Petersberg tasks) or serve as tools to encourage development of the policy area by the EU members (like PESCO). The development of what may appear to be overlapping mandates by both the EU and NATO is generally exaggerated but, even where there are, they remain unlikely to lead to zero-sum competition between the organisations in the short to medium-term. Co-existence will remain the norm for the indefinite future. This also suggests that there is unlikely to be any dramatic improvements in mutual relations, not only because of the Cyprus problem, but because of underlying concerns about NATO‟s relevance and American hegemony and equally strong reserves about the political and military fundamentals of CSDP. The Cyprus problem provides a perhaps convenient pretext for avoiding these harder questions, but it also threatens to waste the potential offered by the Lisbon Treaty and to thus perpetuate the existence of two organizations divided within a common city. The vision thing It has become fashionable, with justification, to lament the lack of a compelling strategic vision for the EU in its external action. This lack of vision then hampers the development of EU external action and, in the specific context of EU-NATO relations, stymies the development and pursuit of common goals.1 At a more general level the lack of strategic vision is reflected in the debates in the literature about the nature of the EU‟s actorness, especially when it comes to security matters.2 Although it is not the job of a treaty to lay out strategy, the Lisbon Treaty nevertheless provides a useful context for any current or future 2 strategies. The treaty makes it clear that the Union‟s external action should be based upon both values and interests. It reminds the EU members what they should stand for (respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights) but goes further than the old version of the treaties by significantly expanding the objectives of the Union. To quote the relevant part of the treaty: In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.3 The values and interests of the Union in its external action are certainly not unique to the EU since the preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed on 4 April 1949, contains rather similar wording. Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty reads as follows: The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.4 This article occupied the back seat for much of the Cold War due to the prominence of NATO‟s Article 5 mission whereby in the event of an armed attack against any Alliance member they shall individually or in concert use „such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area‟.5 The collective self-defence article was important not only because of the particularities of the Cold War but also because of the underlying political solidarity provided by the existence of a common threat and the credibility of American nuclear and convention forces. It was the core „Article 5‟ commitment that prompted Karl Deutsch to describe NATO as a „security community‟ in 1957, whose sense of community rested upon the extreme unlikelihood of violence or aggression between the Alliance members and a sense of common purpose.6 3 With the fading of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union the far broader wording of Article 2 came to the fore as the underpinning justification for the assertion of broad range of military and civilian roles. Article 4 which provides for consultation „whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened‟, was also invoked to underpin NATO‟s claim that it was never just a collective defence alliance and to justify the development of the cooperative security, crisis management and arms control facets of its activities. More importantly, it also led to the Alliance going „out of area‟ and to the consideration of more general international tasks. Logically, the assumption of new tasks that go beyond the transatlantic community and that aim to respond to a far greater range of threats risks loosening the threads binding the „security community‟ together. This is why NATO‟s November 2010 NSC had to reassure all NATO members that the Alliance‟s „greatest responsibility‟ is to „protect and defend our territory and our populations against attack‟.7 Paradoxically, as Article 5 appears more and more otiose in light of the lack of any credible territorial threat to the Alliance area, its relevance as the political bedrock for the Alliance has increased. The importance of an increasingly irrelevant guarantee has been further reinforced by open disagreements between the United States and its allies over a number of fundamental questions of international politics and security (Iraq, Afghanistan, multilateralism, Guantanamo, renditions etc.). The lack of any obvious alternative to NATO alongside the international nature of many of the challenges faced by NATO‟s membership led to expansive versions of the Alliance‟s future including that of „global NATO.‟8 According to this concept the renewed Alliance would expand its protection to all democracies, including Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, transforming it into a quasi-league of democracies.
Recommended publications
  • CLM: Master Thesis, Sibylle Christina Aebi
    Ireland: an emerging eurosceptic or an exemplary EU member state? An examination of Irish attitudes toward the EU and European integration Sibylle Christina Aebi Cand. ling. merc. Erhvervssprog og International Erhvervskommunikation (Engelsk/Europæiske Studier) Adviser: Charlotte Werther April 2009 CLM Master thesis Sibylle Christina Aebi Page | 2 Abstract En undersøgelse af irske holdninger til EU og europæisk integration Irland: på vej til euroskepticisme eller en eksemplarisk EU-medlemsstat? Den offentlige menings rolle i forhold til den europæiske integration har vundet betydning igennem de seneste år. I betragtning af denne stigende fokus på den offentlige menings betydning for udviklingen af det europæiske projekt, skal denne faktor undersøges på baggrund af et valgt eksempel, nemlig offentlige holdninger til EU og europæisk integration i Irland. Irland er velegnet til at studere offentlige holdninger til EU, da befolkningen aktivt kan få indflydelse på den europæiske integrationsprocess ved at afgive deres stemme i referendum, som holdes i forbindelse med ratifikationen af alle EU-traktater. Irland betragtes typisk som et pro- EU land, dvs. et land hvori den offentlige mening er overvejende positiv over for EU og europæisk integration. På det seneste har det irske nej til Nice-traktaten og især sidste års nej til Lissabon-traktaten derimod sat spørgsmålstegn ved denne generelt accepterede forestilling af Irland som en eksemplarisk EU-medlemsstat. Dette speciale tager derfor udgangspunkt i denne problematik og undersøger om irske holdninger til EU kan betragtes som euroskeptiske og om en kategorisering af disse holdninger kan give indsigt i deres underliggende motivation og udvikling. Undersøgelsen af irske holdninger har inddraget teorier vedrørende faktorer, som bestemmer offentlig tilslutning til EU og europæisk integration, og har derudover lagt særlig vægt på teorier og undersøgelser, som udelukkende beskæftiger sig med negative holdninger til EU, eller med andre ord euroskepticisme.
    [Show full text]
  • EU-27 Watch No 8
    EU-27 WATCH No. 8 ISSN 1610-6458 Issued in March 2009 Edited by the Institute for European Politics (IEP), Berlin in collaboration with the Austrian Institute of International Affairs, Vienna Institute for International Relations, Zagreb Bulgarian European Community Studies Association, Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Sofia Academy of Sciences, Budapest Center for European Studies / Middle East Technical Institute for Strategic and International Studies, University, Ankara Lisbon Centre européen de Sciences Po, Paris Institute of International and European Affairs, Centre d’étude de la vie politique, Université libre de Dublin Bruxelles Institute of International Relations, Prague Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Européennes Institute of International Relations and Political Robert Schuman, Luxembourg Science, Vilnius University Centre of International Relations, Ljubljana Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome Cyprus Institute for Mediterranean, European and Latvian Institute of International Affairs, International Studies, Nicosia Riga Danish Institute for International Studies, Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, Copenhagen University of Malta Elcano Royal Institute and UNED University, Madrid Netherlands Institute of International Relations European Institute of Romania, Bucharest ‘Clingendael’, The Hague Federal Trust for Education and Research, London Slovak Foreign Policy Association, Bratislava Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Foundation
    [Show full text]
  • Kidnapped The
    Who kidnapped the November 1992 Vol. 6, No.2 $4.00 Hardy Boys? ((T.~tremism in tlie defense of[iberty is no vice. jJ - 'Barry (jo[dwater Volume 2 • "Life With (and Without) Ayn Rand," by Tibor R. Machan • "Capitalism Comes to Poland?" by Krzysztof Ostaszewski September 1988 • "Fear and Loathing in New York City," by Murray N. Rothbard • "Scrooge McDuck and His Creator," by Phil Salin Plus articles and reviews by Loren Lomasky, Michael Christian, Richard • "Liberty and Ecology," by John Hospers Kostelanetz, R.W. Bradford and others; and an interview with Russell • "The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic," by Hans­ Means. (72 pages) Hermann Hoppe Plus reviews and articles by Douglas Casey, David Friedman, Karl January 1990 Hess, Douglas Rasmussen, Murray Rothbard, L. Neil Smith and oth­ • "The Greenhouse Effect: Myth or Danger?" by Patrick ]. Michaels ers; and a short story by Erika Holzer. (80 pages) • "The Case for Paleolibertarianism," by Llewelyn Rockwell • "How Roosevelt Soaked the Poor," by Richard Kostelanetz November 1988 • "In Defense ofJim Baker and Zsa Zsa," by Ethan O. Waters • "Taking Over the Roads," by John Semmens • "The Death of Socialism: What It Means," by RW. Bradford, Murray • "The Search for We The Living," by R.W. Bradford Rothbard, Stephen Cox, and William P. Moulton • "Private Property: Hope for the Environment," by Jane S. Shaw Plus writing by Andrew Roller, David Gordon and others; and an inter­ Plus articles and reviews by Walter Block, Stephen Cox, John view with Barbara Branden. (80 pages) Dentinger, James Robbins and others. (80 pages) March 1990 January 1989 • "The Case Against Isolationism," by Stephen Cox • "AIDS and the FDA," by Sandy Shaw • "H.L.
    [Show full text]
  • From Dublin to Lisbon: Ireland's EU Reform Treaty Referendums and Their Lessons for Europe
    Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union Volume 2010 Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Article 9 Conference on the European Union March 2012 From Dublin to Lisbon: Ireland’s EU Reform Treaty Referendums and Their Lessons for Europe Katelyn Walker Claremont McKenna College Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/urceu Recommended Citation Walker, Katelyn (2010) "From Dublin to Lisbon: Ireland’s EU Reform Treaty Referendums and Their Lessons for Europe," Claremont- UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union: Vol. 2010, Article 9. DOI: 10.5642/urceu.201001.09 Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/urceu/vol2010/iss1/9 This Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Claremont at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont–UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union 85 7 From Dublin to Lisbon: Ireland’s EU Reform Treaty Referendums and Their Lessons for Europe Katelyn Walker The Irish people were long thought to be among the most enthusiastic Europeans. Since 1988, Eurobarometer polling1 has shown that Irish citizens are significantly more likely to view their country’s membership in the European Union (EU) as a good thing than citizens of other countries. Since the mid-1990s, approval of EU membership in Ireland was often twenty points higher than the EU average (Sinnott, Elkink, O’Rourke & McBride, 2009, p. 2). Despite this, a low turnout of voters rejected the EU’s Treaty of Nice in 20012, and a relatively high turnout of voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008 (Ibid, p.
    [Show full text]
  • 1979-2014 Euromanifesto Study Documentation Content Analysis of Party Manifestos for the EP Elections from 28 Countries and the European Groups
    European Election Studies 1979-2014: Manifesto Project 1979-2014 Euromanifesto Study Documentation Content Analysis of Party Manifestos for the EP Elections from 28 Countries and the European Groups Hermann Schmitt University of Manchester and University of Mannheim, MZES Daniela Braun Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich Sebastian Adrian Popa University of Mannheim, MZES Slava Mikhaylov University College London Felix Dwinger University of Mannheim, MZES This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme No 649281 — EUENGAGE — H202 EURO-2014-2015 H2020- EURO-SOCITY-2014 Title 1979-2014 Euromanifesto Study Documentation Bibliographic European Election Studies 1979-2014: Manifesto Project citation Coordinators Hermann Schmitt Daniela Braun Sebastian Adrian Popa Slava Mikhaylov Felix Dwinger Student assistants Lukáš Hájek Shirin Tumenbaeva Unit of analysis Content analysis of party manifestos for the EP elections from 28 countries and the European groups Topics Euromanifestos coded by coders from all member states of the European Union using a hierarchical classification scheme containing nine domains subdivided into different categories and subcategories File name ZA5102_v2-0-0.dta ZA5102_v2-0-0.sav Data available for public use and to be cited as follows: EES. 2016. European Election Studies. 1979-2014 Manifesto Study Data. The citation is always to accompany at least this documentation: Schmitt, Hermann, Daniela Braun, Sebastian A. Popa, Slava Mikhaylov, and Felix Dwinger. 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Leaders from Around the World Call on UN to End the Drug
    A DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE RELEASE DRUGPOLICY.ORG/UNGASS2016 APRIL 20, 2016 Leaders from Around the World Call on A growing number of city, state and nation- al governments no longer treat drug use and UN to End the Drug War possession as crimes. Some are beginning to legally regulate cannabis for medical and even MR. BAN KI-MOON, SECRETARY GENERAL laws, agencies and attitudes impeded harm re- non-medical purposes. Many more recognize UNITED NATIONS duction and other effective health policies. the need to make essential medicines readily Humankind cannot afford a 21st century available, especially for pain and palliative care Dear Secretary General, drug policy as ineffective and counter-produc- in lower income countries. But far greater and With the United Nations General Assem- tive as the last century’s. A new global response more systemic reforms are essential. bly Special Session on the World Drug Problem to drugs is needed, grounded in science, com- We were encouraged last year, Mr. Secre- (UNGASS) fast approaching in New York, we passion, health and human rights. tary General, when you urged governments seek your enlightened leadership in calling for The role of crimi- reform of global drug control policies. nalization and criminal The drug control regime that emerged justice must be limited to “ Humankind cannot afford during the last century has proven disastrous the extent truly required for global health, security and human rights. Fo- to protect health and a 21st century drug policy as cused overwhelmingly on criminalization and safety. Leadership must punishment, it created a vast illicit market that come from those who ineffective and counter- has enriched criminal organizations, corrupted recognize that psycho- governments, triggered explosive violence, dis- active drug use is first productive as the last century’s.” torted economic markets and undermined basic and foremost a matter moral values.
    [Show full text]