Alphen,
Netherlands. 24 January. The new US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, made an
overnight phone call to his British counterpart and new/old bestest friend,
Michael Fallon. During the call Mattis reaffirmed his and the Administration’s “unshakeable
commitment” to NATO. Late last week I had the honour of addressing leaders and
parliamentarians of the Baltic States at the outstanding George C. Marshall
Center in Garmisch-Partenkirchen on matters strategic. What struck me as I
spoke (brilliantly of course) was how the West is managing change the wrong way
round. Rather than properly adapting our ‘boxes’ – NATO and the EU – to meet
change, we are trying to squeeze big change into what in relative power terms
are ever smaller boxes. Why?
Leadership
must be judged by outcomes and if you’re a European, or an American the
outcomes of late have too often been rubbish. Now, I know it is fashionable in
Chicken Little Europe to condemn everything the new #POTUS says, and yes not
only does #POTUS sound like a domestic vegetable but Washington’s new
Tweetocracy does indeed risk reducing one of the great offices of great state
to little more than a strategy-free, reactive, angry tag-line. However, the simple
truth is that the so-called Euro-Atlantic ‘community’ DOES need a bloody good
kick up the many well-upholstered arses of the politics before strategy leaders
who claim to lead it, but frankly too often do not.
Trump has a
point. At some levels NATO IS obsolete and the EU IS dysfunctional. This makes
all of us UNNECESSARILY weaker and poorer at one and the same time. The reason
for this decline is essentially simple; as the various Euro-Atlantic powers
have diverged in their respective world views maintaining the appearance of
unity has become more important than trying to agree on the real change both
the Alliance and the Union desperately need if they are both to remain credible.
In other words, preserving the appearance of structure has become more
important than adapting structure to change.
NATO is at
least having a go at change. The 2014 Wales Summit and the 2016 Warsaw Summit
agreed a programme of ‘adaptation’ that is on the face of it impressive.
Indeed, I have the honour of sitting on a steering committee of a group of very
distinguished colleagues committed to examine NATO adaptation. We are charged
with the challenge of finding a ‘One NATO’ adaptation vision for the Alliance
that will not only reinforce the credibility of NATO deterrence and defence posture,
but also future-proof the Alliance. We are making very good progress. However, the
mission is not an easy one as it is clear to me that such is the strategic
divide within the Alliance we have at least three NATOs; eastern NATO, southern
NATO, and America.
The EU is
particularly good at change-speak, but hideously bad at acting on it. With
Brexit the EU will soon lose some 10% of its budget, but speak to EU officials and
it is as though nothing has happened. EU security and defence efforts have been
and are particularly lamentable. Last week I happened upon my PhD thesis. Written
many years ago and entitled, “The Security and Defence of Western Europe”, the
final chapter laid out what was in effect a blueprint for what in time became the
European Security and Defence Policy, then the Common Security and Defence
Policy. As I re-read it I was struck by the paucity of strategic ambition in Europe
over the intervening years. Names are changed, meetings are held, a few
adjustments are made, hyperbole is applied, but sod all that is actually relevant
to the defence of Europe actually happens.
Which brings
me back to the question why? Both the Alliance and the Union suffer from a
common problem that will need to change if either NATO or the EU are to be made
fit for the twenty-first century – the strategic inferiority complex of many of
their respective members. NATO was born in 1949 primarily of arranging
Europeans into some form of order so that America could protect them. With the
1954 accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Alliance, NATO also
took on the additional task of preventing Germany again becoming a threat to
Europe. In a sense the European Project, which began its long and winding road
with the 1950 creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, suffered from
the same strategic inferiority complex as NATO. However, whilst in NATO Europeans
over time became strategically incompetent under America’s protection, which is
certainly the case today, the EU evolved into a mechanism for the small Europeans
to strategically castrate bigger Europeans in the name of European stability.
The result? A ‘Europe’ that is still far too obsessed with structure for structure's sake, too inward-looking, and
incapable of either understanding or responding to change beyond its completely
ill-defended borders beyond the odd, and quite often hideously expensive
gestures.
If NATO and
the EU are to change Europeans must finally expel the last remnants of a mutual-constraint
culture that has turned Europeans into strategic prey. To do that Europeans
must abandon once and for all the idea that Europe can only achieve stability
through mutual weakness. Instead, both the Alliance and the Union must be
adapted to act as mutual aggregators of legitimate power, complete with the
full, credible and capable panoply of state-owned security and military capabilities
and capacities. That is exactly what Sec Def Mattis will demand of his European
allies, because that will be the only way he can sell NATO to his Eurosceptic
boss when he comes to Europe in May.
Like many
Europeans there is much about President Donald J. Trump I find distasteful.
However, I am a pragmatic, hard-bitten Realist. For that reason, and because I respect
both the United States and the Office of the President of the United States, I
will examine each policy position on its merits. However, Europeans should not wait for
President Trump’s prejudices to be confirmed. Even at this time of division
they should endeavour to offer the Americans a more equitable vision of the
future transatlantic relationship. European states are grown-up and can be
trusted not to go to war with each other and they must stop using the past as
an excuse not to properly prepare for the future. The danger is that if the appearance of
structure is deemed to be more important than adapting structure then sooner
rather than later change will win and our structures could collapse catastrophically.
Big change is
coming to transatlantic relations, and NATO and the EU must be adapted to cope
with it. President Donald J. Trump is just the beginning…
Julian
Lindley-French
