Europe takes first steps on road to becoming a military superpower

Date: 06/05/1999

By Simon Taylor

PLANS to enable the EU to handle its security needs in its own backyard without involving the US or other NATO members received a significant boost at the alliance's 50th anniversary summit last month.

Despite fears that Turkey would block any moves which would give Union countries a 'blank cheque' to mount operations without its approval, Ankara finally gave way and supported a statement which Union diplomats say gave them everything that they wanted.

NATO members agreed unanimously that they should "define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of the alliance, for operations in which the alliance as a whole is not engaged militarily".

The conclusion even contained an explicit reference to the St Malo declaration last December in which UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac called for the Union to have "the capacity for autonomous action". NATO officials had expected Ankara to win its battle to keep this out of the conclusions.

NATO leaders also asked the alliance's permanent council to look at issues such as the "presumption of availability to the EU of pre-identified NATO capabilities and common assets for use in EU-led operations". This basically amounts to a commitment to allow the EU to use NATO equipment in solo missions.

Doubts were also raised just ahead of the summit meeting about whether the US could give firm enough support to the initiative to satisfy the Europeans.

However, Washington now appears convinced that European willingness to share more of the burden for regional security could be combined with a continuing reliance on NATO assets which would give the US an effective veto over missions it did not approve of.

As one defence analyst put it, Washington could have its cake and eat it too.

A report by the UK-based Centre for European Reform, written before the summit, expressed the same sentiments differently. "Americans will tire of discussing Europe's security architecture if the Europeans appear to want recognition without being prepared to share the burden of both common and distinctive security interests," it warned.

However, lingering suspicions still remain in the US camp that the France-German alliance might wish to create a European defence identity which could rival NATO politically.

But there is speculation that Washington believes that this is a risk worth taking, because of its desire to seize any opportunity to tie France more closely into NATO structures.

To assuage Turkish fears about being left out of operations planning, NATO leaders stressed that there should be the "fullest possible involvement of non-EU European allies in EU-led crisis response operations".

Defence officials point out that the Turks had no option but to back down at the Washington summit, not only because they were isolated but also because they were asking the impossible of European NATO members - to define what exactly the EU's defence entity would look like before its members states had decided on the way forward. "It was like asking the Europeans to mortgage their future," said one source.

Nevertheless, officials predict that there will be a further round of very hard bargaining with Ankara when the precise details of any EU defence structure is being decided.

They also point out that Turkey might not be the only difficult customer when the EU sets up its new decision-making structures, predicting that Poland - which became a full NATO member this year and which is hoping to join the EU early in the next decade - could push for a stronger role in the future Union defence structure.

Warsaw could argue that it deserves better treatment than Ankara as it presents a less difficult political challenge than Turkey with no Kurdish problem and no obvious opponent like Greece to block its efforts to join the EU. Abolishing the WEU, of which Poland is an associate partner country, would only serve to strengthen its case.

Possible opposition from other non-EU NATO members such as Norway and Iceland has been much more muted because they do not want to be seen to be pushing for closer links with the Union, given public opposition to full membership.

WEU membership

Note: * = Nato Member; = = EU member

NATO in figures

Major feature. Related urls: http://www.weu.int/; http://www.nato.int/home.htm.