F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F O C U S Lisbon Treaty remains unratified. Nor is there an identity for Europeans to assume. Nonetheless, the CFSP reflects a longstanding desire in European countries to have a foreign policy and a military force independent of — but not opposed to — NATO. European nations can boast an impressive numerical tally: 27 armed forces, 10,000 tanks, around 2,500 combat aircraft, and almost two million soldiers — but with much overlap and redundancy. According to a July 2008 white paper published by the European Council on <strong>Foreign</strong> Relations, “Re-Energizing Europe’s Security and Defense Policy” by Nick Witney, some “70 percent of Europe’s land forces are unable to operate outside national territory.” According to that study, one reason that the E.U.’s operational missions throughout the world remain limited in scope is that “the 5 percent of Europe’s nearly two million men and women in uniform currently overseas is the maximum that obsolete military machines can sustain.” Until 2007, Witney headed the European Defense Agency, which attempts to “improve Europe’s defense performance, by promoting coherence and a more integrated approach to capability development.” EDA’s goals may appear modest, but its attempts at coordination and efficiency among militaries that together consume onequarter of the world’s defense budgets can be made to bear fruit. France: Back in the NATO Fold? Several important European countries share membership in NATO and the E.U., but among NATO’s top powers, only France has formally separated its political and military participation. France was key to NATO’s foundation, and until 1967 was the host to the organization’s political headquarters in central Paris and military headquarters (SHAPE) in the Parisian suburbs. That all changed when President Charles de Gaulle, proclaiming France’s independence in matters strategic, pulled out of the unified military command. Ever since, NATO has been headquartered in Belgium. NATO’s 60th-anniversary summit this month will be held in Strasbourg, the most European of French cities. European member-states — which also tend to belong to the E.U. — no longer see NATO as their primary institution of reference. Sitting on the Rhine, linked by bridges to Kehl, Germany (summit co-host), it houses such important institutions as the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. It is also headquarters of EUROCORPS, which grandly proclaims itself “A Force for Europe and NATO” — consisting of earmarked troops from France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Don’t expect a return to Paris — NATO will stay in Brussels and SHAPE in Mons, Belgium — but the summit in Strasbourg will mark a turning point. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has promised to return his country to NATO’s military command. In late January, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer hinted at the impending decision: “I hope that Strasbourg might be the moment in which we can welcome France’s move to take its full place again in NATO, particularly in the military structure.” Along the same lines, in early February Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel co-authored a lengthy article that appeared in both Le Monde and the Süddeutsche Zeitung, providing the context for what they present as a net plus for both NATO and the European Union. “NATO and the E.U., alliances founded on common values,” wrote the French and German leaders, “take on increased importance” in the current context of global crises, the variety of which “requires a wider definition of security policy.” This joint declaration, coming as it did just prior to the annual Munich Security Conference and coordinated with leaks detailing France’s NATO negotiations, sets the expected French reintegration squarely within the continuum of both European Union and bilateral Franco- German security cooperation. Observing that “the overwhelming majority of European nations have preferred joining NATO and the E.U.,” the leaders underlined the near-universal appeal of both organizations. Both NATO and the E.U. form parts of a whole, which the French and German leaders call the “Euro-Atlantic security partnership.” Pres. Sarkozy’s desire to rejoin NATO’s unified military command shows that the club still has its attractions. 18 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 9
F O C U S Despite cracks about “freedom fries,” France’s absence from NATO commands has been a net loss for the alliance. Sarkozy, who has already shown greater willingness to participate in NATO military operations, has also taken sometimes-unpopular (with French military and regional officials) decisions to rationalize France’s sprawling defense establishment. It may be that by having France “take its full place again in NATO,” Sarkozy has made a calculation that collective security is a cost-effective way of dealing with constrained national defense budgets. Yet the relative lack of preparation of French public opinion for the reintegration into NATO’s military command highlights Sarkozy’s downplaying its importance domestically, where there is a tradition of anti-militarism in the Socialist Party opposition and proud independence among ruling UMP conservatives. Much depends on spin, and Sarkozy’s (self)- satisfaction with the modest progress on E.U. defense during his 2008 presidency provides sufficient cover to present French rapprochement within NATO as a prudent measure whose time has come. NATO Expansion and Power Projection Though <strong>American</strong>s might scoff at French recalcitrance over the years, there has long been a realization in foreign policy and defense circles that France’s absence from NATO commands was a net loss for the Alliance, and not just from an institutional perspective. France, with its worldwide territories and overseas “departments,” has a navy that literally patrols the seven seas. Its army, though considerably downsized after the end of conscription in 2001, remains a force capable of power projection, whether independently or as part of E.U., NATO or United Nations operations. A P R I L 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 19
Page 1: PLANNING FOR RETIREMENT ■ COMING
Page 6 and 7: F OREIGN J O U R N A L SERVICE Edit
Page 8 and 9: LETTERS Progress on Contact Reporti
Page 10 and 11: L E T T E R S gressional authority
Page 12 and 13: CYBERNOTES New Focus on Public Dipl
Page 14 and 15: C Y B E R N O T E S This is not ju
Page 16 and 17: S P E A K I N G O U T guage-design
Page 18 and 19: F O C U S and its continued influen
Page 22 and 23: F O C U S Many Americans might reca
Page 24 and 25: F O C U S O N N AT O A T 6 0 ANSWER
Page 26 and 27: F O C U S NATO’s International Se
Page 28 and 29: F O C U S bership. But none of the
Page 30 and 31: F O C U S O N N AT O A T 6 0 THE RU
Page 32 and 33: F O C U S “transformation agenda
Page 34 and 35: F O C U S 2003 Iraq War, and would
Page 36 and 37: They may also not expect changes in
Page 38 and 39: who are younger, married for shorte
Page 41 and 42: AFSANEWS American Foreign Service A
Page 43 and 44: V.P. VOICE: STATE ■ BY STEVE KASH
Page 45 and 46: ing restrictions on rehiring annuit
Page 47 and 48: FS VOICE: FAMILY MEMBER MATTERS ■
Page 49 and 50: 2009 Foreign Service Youth Contests
Page 51 and 52: CLASSIFIEDS A F S A N E W S LEGAL S
Page 53 and 54: BOOKS The Importance of Religious F
Page 55: B O O K S nates, though several le
Page 58 and 59: I N M E M O R Y ernment and the Ja
Page 60 and 61: I N M E M O R Y mation Agency in 1
Page 62 and 63: I N M E M O R Y the Food and Drug
Page 64 and 65: I N M E M O R Y of adventure, her
Page 66 and 67: u COORDINATE MAINTENANCE u OVER 24
Page 68 and 69: REAL ESTATE ADVERTISING INDEX When
Page 70:
REFLECTIONS Recalling Lockerbie BY
show all

F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?