• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Greatest Threat to the Future of the (NATO) Alliance

    EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton

    The EU’s beleaguered Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton, stated yesterday that she is no longer opposed to the creation of a permanent EU military headquarters to support a European army that will stand separate from NATO. In a flip-flop that would make John Kerry blush, first she was against the idea and now she’s in favor. How quickly the world’s highest paid politician changes her mind.

    A permanent EU headquarters is yet another step toward an independent EU defense identity to undermine the primacy of NATO in European security structures, and American leadership in transatlantic affairs. Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns described it as, “the greatest threat to the future of the Alliance.”

    Both the UK and United States have long opposed this wasteful and duplicative policy, which is largely the purview of Franco-German elites who want the EU as a counterbalance to American influence in Europe. The EU already has access to national military planning centers for its missions, as well as NATO’s headquarters upon request. It also has a fledgling temporary headquarters for its civilian missions. There is neither the need nor the resources for a second military headquarters, only the political will by Euro-fanatics to erode the supremacy of NATO in Europe.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently decried Europe’s demilitarization and pitiful defense spending. Just four (Bulgaria, France, Greece, and the U.K.) of the 21 EU-NATO members spend the NATO benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. The EU can therefore only afford a separate army and its own Headquarters at NATO’s expense.

    As NATO renegotiates its Strategic Concept, it will have to better lay out the relationship between itself and the EU, especially on questions of primacy and resources. U.S. planners must take a clearer-headed view of the EU’s ambitions to supplant, rather than complement NATO than they are presently. As Robin Harris, a former member of the Downing Street Policy Unit, has written, “The NATO Web site proudly boasts that there is a ‘strategic partnership’ between NATO and the E.U. There is no such thing, only an incipient strategic competition between America and Europe.”

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to The Greatest Threat to the Future of the (NATO) Alliance

    1. dan says:

      The Kremlin must be pleased. An EU decoupled from NATO, at best reluctant to build and maintain a 21st Century defense, arguably over-dependent on Russian energy already, comprising states sure to experience both domestic and intramural political crises related to their worldviews, finances, and so on… All the while, the Kremlin dangling its concept of "European Security" before the hypnotized aristocracy of the EU…

      Well. I hope everyone's read up on their Anatoliy Golitsyn. How utterly unsurprising that Lady Ashton should be a possible Russian intelligence asset through that idiotic "Anti-Nuclear" organization in the late 1970s and early 1980s…

    2. Mikel, Washington D. says:

      The idea of "amping up" one's military is only natural considering Europe's path (desired certainly by many) towards a federation-type state.

      We can't: 1.) blame them for not doing more militarily, and 2.) in the meantime not expect them to place the majority of their focus at home.

      In the end, it is neither in their nor our interest for this 'divided' defence initiative. As Daniel Korski explains: they need us as much as wee need them.

    3. Chuck says:

      Ever since the Berlin wall came down , We Americans have no need to be in NATO. We should not, nor be expected to police the world. Think not? Then turn it around and ask yourself,” which country would you like to protect us?” Of coarse they will never go away and constantly promote their politics as if they really cared for the people. Follow the money and it will be easier to understand the need of protection. The World Bank and WTO can inform you of all the needs and necessities . What I don”t like is American giant companies that use low paying countries to make a product and sell it in USA. I say, it is long past time to get out of UN and NATO. We are paying for our own destruction and don’t even know it. “Support the troops” – - for who?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×