EU, NATO, EU-NATO relationship, United States, money, European defense, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Second World War, Rebuild, organization, international relationship, SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Belin Plus Agreements, Bosnia, Herzegovina, politics, army, military forces, partnership, security, defense, General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, budget, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, geopolitical stakes, political stakes, hard power, soft power, North Atlantic Treaty, Hungary, Turkey
Eastern and Western Europe were separated in the aftermath of the Second World War by their rapprochement with one of the two great victorious powers, the USSR and the United States. Rebuild = European countries reduced their military budgets and thus find themselves at a disadvantage in the face of the USSR and its significant military investments.
Canadians, British and Americans, who saw its alliances as a way to keep an influence on Europe, gathered in Washington to develop a "collective defence treaty for the North Atlantic area" in order to maintain peace. These negotiations led to the signing, on 4 April 1949, of the Washington Treaty, which established a system of common security and military alliance : the NATO. The European Union was also born out of the idea of keeping Europe at peace by uniting it into an economic but also in political fields, thanks to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It is therefore legitimate to question the interaction between the two organizations and the changes they bring about, as their missions can sometimes overlap each other. To what extent is the partnership between the EU and NATO caracterised by relations that oscillate between complementarity and conflict depending on the international and internal context of the states ?
[...] All military interventions from NATO are launched after an impulsion of the United States, as it was the case for Bosnia, for example, when Europe stood divided for almost 6 years. Worse still, the simple existence of this military organization conducts who can enter the EU and why. Indeed, it has not been possible to integrate some new EU Member States, like Cyprus, into this inter-organizational configuration. Cyprus was not allowed to enter the EU because Turkey made a lot of lobbying against it, putting a veto on Cyprus's access to NATO resources during the Chief of Defenses Meeting in December 2002. [...]
[...] The EU tries to avoid conflict by refusing the candidatures of both countries. This situation prevents the integration of this State into the permanent EU-NATO arrangements. Cyprus no longer has access to NATO classified information, even though they normally participate in the other dimensions of the CSDP. In other words, the European Union is partially deprived of some of its members because of the agreements linking it to NATO. Two powerful entities with competing powers and codependency Moreover, an increasing risk of overlapping powers appeared to start from the moment of the creation of an independent European defense policy in 1992. [...]
[...] Discriminating a NATO member country that is not part of the EU by keeping it away from military information. Example of Turkey Therefore, there are many conflicts between the EU and NATO because of different geopolitical and political ambitions but also because of overlapping powers that create confusion between them. In addition to those structural problems, the EU-NATO partnership must face new geopolitical and political stakes that force it to evolve. EU-NATO partnership tested by new geopolitical and political stakes From common defense to global security: the new objectives of the EU and NATO Common defense just military, avoiding wars between NATO members and within NATO and the EU borders, no interventions beyond these borders Global security includes more than the military aspect, political and economic dimensions, to face new threats that cannot be solved by a frontal attack by an army. [...]
[...] It is also confusing for the EU's members as the members of Eastern Europe that are more inclined to ask for toughness on this case (seeing that they are afraid to be invaded as well: fear of not being supported by NATO in the event of Russian intervention and the annexation of part of their territories.) than the Western Europe members who are more inclined to keep relations as good as possible with Russia. The only response that the organizations could provide is to show muscles within NATO borders with the Operation Enhanced Forward Presence in 2017, which consists of the deployment of four multinational battalions in the Baltic States and Poland. Since the end of the Cold War, no deployment of this magnitude has taken place within the Atlantic Alliance. [...]
[...] USA: Europe is its "battlefield" with Russia geopolitically speaking, needs to control what's happening in Europe to avoid a strong Russian influence and thus, being isolated on the world stage. Trump is criticizing as he considers that the USA bears alone all the cost of protecting Europe and have nothing in return except volatile allies. Hungary: leader of the Eastern European block which always sides with the NATO in case of divergence with Western countries (Iraqi War), tends to get closer to Russia in terms of economy and domestic policies. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee