European Security after September 11
- PDF / 185,282 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 183 Views
European Security after September 11 Heinz Ga¨rtner Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP), Operngasse 20B, A-1030 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: heinz_ga¨[email protected]
The wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan showed the overwhelming US war-fighting capability — by comparison, a limited European contribution capacity seen among other NATO members. The gap between the military capabilities of the US and the rest of the world is huge and is growing. With financial difficulties for many European governments and the absence of a direct threat, it is questionable whether Europeans should replicate American capabilities. An appropriate division of labor is essential. European militaries are designed more for peacekeeping, humanitarian action, and disaster relief rather than the rapid deployment of large forces over long distances. The United States will need to continue to project forces in high-intensity conflict. There should be some risk- and responsibility-sharing, however. This can be done by a qualified division of labor. European states should keep a minimum level of participation in all phases of an operation. As Europeans should keep and develop some war-fighting capability, US troops also should participate at least at a minimal level in lower-end Peace Support Operations. They should not be reduced to war-fighting alone, but demonstrate that they are able to do humanitarian and rescue and peacekeeping operations. International Politics (2003) 40, 59–73. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800008 Keywords: European Security; European Union; security; defense; NATO; peacekeeping; September 11
Introduction Crisis management is the paradigm that forms the cornerstone of the post-Cold War security system. By far the greatest proportion of NATO and EU (European Union) operational efforts have already shifted away from collective defense toward this type of activity. Members of the EU in the framework of the ‘Petersberg Tasks’, as well as members of NATO or Partnership for Peace (PfP) participate in crisis management, peacekeeping,1 humanitarian action, and peace-making/peace-enforcement operations. The terror attacks of September 11 have accelerated the transformation process of the European security system. It had in particular an influence on NATO’s role. Founded as a defensive alliance, NATO has revised its strategic concept to respond to the broader spectrum of the threats — those ranging from traditional cases of cross-border aggression to interethnic conflicts and acts of
Heinz Ga¨rtner European Security after September 11
60
terrorism. Although NATO invoked its Article 5 mutual protection clause, the US chose not to act militarily through the alliance, however. There must be appropriate division of labor. The wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan demonstrated that an overwhelming preponderance of warfighting capacities rest with US forces. By comparison, the European contribution to combat capabilities has been limited. The military gap between the US and the rest of the world is huge and is growing. However, a capability
Data Loading...
