Brookings: Experts - Clara M. O'Donnell

The Social Impact of the Eurozone Crisis in Southern Europe: The EU Response and the Challenges Ahead

Fri, 03 May 2013 10:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 3, 2013
10:30 AM - 12:00 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

As the ongoing eurozone crisis continues to threaten the European single market and endanger the global economy, it has unleashed uncertainties about Europe’s political and institutional durability. The economic crisis has also become increasingly a social crisis, especially in the heavily-indebted states of Southern Europe, where austerity measures and high unemployment have led to questions about the sustainability of the current situation.

On May 3, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) and the European Parliament’s Liaison Office, hosted a discussion with European Parliament Vice-President Gianni Pittella. In his remarks, Mr. Pittella discussed the social impact of the crisis and how the European Parliament has responded to address these challenges.

Gianni Pittella has been the first vice-president of the European Parliament since July 2009 when he was re-elected for the third time with the Democratic Party from the Southern Italy electoral district. He was first elected as a member of the European Parliament in 1999. Mr. Pittella is the author of numerous books, including most recently, Federalismo Avvelenato (Fondazione Zefiro, 2011) and A Brief History of the Future of the United States of Europe (Fazi, 2013), which he coauthored with Elido Fazi.

Brookings Nonresident Fellow Clara Marina O’Donnell provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.

NATO and the Costs of Star Wars

Clara M. O'Donnell — Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Over the last decade, the US has spent tens of billions of dollars constructing a shield to stop nuclear missiles from North Korea or Iran reaching its soil. So far, the shield does not work. Fortunately for the Americans, neither Pyongyang nor Tehran has nuclear missiles that could hit the US. Unfortunately, however, America's missile defence programme has upset China and Russia, two countries that do have nuclear arsenals that could reach its homeland. America's European partners in NATO should try to convince Washington to scale back its missile defence ambitions for the next few years. Not only would this allow the US government to spend its shrinking defence budget on more pressing military needs. It would also improve European security by reducing tensions between NATO and Russia.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has been increasingly worried about nuclear attacks by 'rogue' states. In 1998, a study group chaired by Donald Rumsfeld predicted that North Korea and Iran could field intercontinental ballistic missiles within five years. Today, however, Iran has neither intercontinental missiles nor a nuclear bomb. In March of this year, a report from the Pentagon's intelligence agency (erroneously declassified) assessed "with moderate confidence" that Pyongyang could build a nuclear device that fits on a missile. But there is still no evidence that North Korean missiles are sophisticated enough to reach the US.

Although the American mainland is not currently under threat, every president since George H.W. Bush has sought to deploy nation-wide defences against a limited attack by ballistic missiles. Reviving some of President Ronald Reagan's 'star wars' ambitions, the US has had missile interceptors deployed in Alaska and California since 2004. Both the George W Bush and Obama administrations have also had various plans to deploy interceptors against intercontinental missiles at bases in Europe. (The Obama administration, working with NATO, has also been deploying interceptors in Europe to protect Europeans and US troops in the region against shorter-range missiles from Iran – a threat which does exist.) In March, Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel announced that because of technical problems and budgetary constraints, the US is suspending its efforts to build Europe-based strategic interceptors. He also said that in response to the bellicose attitude of North Korea's new leader, the US will add 14 missile interceptors in on its West Coast, and perhaps deploy a few more on the East Coast, too.

The Obama administration has been wise to cancel the European leg of its strategic missile defence plans. Several recent studies had highlighted significant shortcomings in the programme. For example, a 2012 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the interceptors planned for Europe would have been too slow to stop an incoming missile. But the US would be ill advised to increase the number of interceptors on the West – and possibly East – Coast. Studies have shown that the interceptors in Alaska and California do not work well either. According to Congress' Government Accountability Office, ten out of the 30 interceptors rely on technology which has never intercepted a missile during tests. The GAO estimates that it will take several years to repair this technology, costing the US taxpayer an additional $700 million. Hagel has promised to fix these glitches before the new interceptors are deployed. But the Pentagon does not yet have a solution to another big problem. None of its interceptors can distinguish between an incoming warhead and debris or decoys. (Ballistic missiles can easily carry decoys in addition to warheads.)

America's strategic missile defence efforts have made the US taxpayer fund a weapon that does not work to tackle a threat that does not exist. They have also antagonised China and Russia. Both countries worry that US technological breakthroughs could undermine their strategic deterrents. Moscow has been most displeased. The Kremlin has been asking for legal guarantees that the US would not direct its missile defences against Russia's strategic nuclear weapons. To reassure Russia, the Obama administration has encouraged Moscow to co-operate with NATO's defence programme against Iranian short and long-range missiles. (Moscow is less worried about NATO's defences against Iranian short-range missiles because the interceptors used would be too slow to stop a Russian strategic missile.) Washington has also been willing to provide Moscow political guarantees that its nuclear deterrent is not under threat.

But so far, the Obama administration has refused to give Russia legal guarantees. The US has made such commitments in the past. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty established limits on what Moscow and Washington could do in this area from the 1970s until 2002. President George W Bush then withdrew from the agreement in order to pursue America’s missile defence ambitions unhindered. The Obama administration fears that Republican senators – who are keen on missile defence – would not ratify a treaty that would constrain the US. As a result, missile defence has become one of the most contentious issues in a troubled US-Russia relationship. Moscow has refused to negotiate further cuts in its nuclear arsenal until the issue is resolved. Last year, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces threatened to attack the European NATO countries hosting US missile defences. And according to press reports, Russian bombers have been simulating strikes against American missile defence installations.

Now that Hagel has cancelled the European leg of US strategic missile defences, there is a chance that NATO and Russia could end their dispute. Senior American and Russian officials have resumed talks about Russia co-operating with NATO's missile defence efforts. US policy-makers have also been encouraging Moscow to negotiate new bilateral nuclear reductions – a top priority for President Barack Obama. According to some Russian officials, President Vladimir Putin may be open to an agreement when he meets President Obama at the G8 in June or at their bilateral summit in September. But the Russians still want legal guarantees on strategic missile defences.

Europeans welcome the possibility of improved NATO-Russia ties. Most of them have never been convinced of the need for, or feasibility of, strategic missile defences and many disliked Washington's decision to leave the ABM treaty. Germany and others have been keen for Russia to co-operate with NATO's missile defence programme as a way to alleviate tensions. To maximise the chances of a deal between Washington and Moscow, Europeans should now encourage their American allies to include legal guarantees on missile defence in a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Steven Pifer and Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institution point out in their book 'The opportunity' that treaty limits could still allow the US to deploy all its planned defences against North Korea and Iran: the US and Russia could for example agree to each having a maximum of 125 interceptors capable of engaging intercontinental missiles. (The ABM treaty initially allowed for 200.) The treaty could also be limited to ten years, so that both sides could reconsider its ceilings in light of how the threats from North Korea and Iran evolve.

The White House, and Europeans, would struggle to convince some Republican senators to ratify such a treaty. But without it, Russia is unlikely to reduce its numerous tactical nuclear weapons – an arsenal that worries both Democrats and Republicans. Europeans should also discourage their US counterparts from deploying additional interceptors against strategic missiles until tests have shown them to be effective. The risk of wasting large sums of money at a time of savage defence cuts should help senators to reassess their views on missile defence.

As Greg Thielmann, a former senior US state department intelligence official, remarks, Europeans have "tamed ill-considered American instincts" in the past: in the 1980s, Europeans encouraged a reluctant Reagan administration to negotiate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. For the benefit of NATO-Russia relations and global arms control, the Europeans should encourage their ally to reassess its stance again.

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: Centre for European Reform

Image Source: © Yves Herman / Reuters

Time to Bite the Bullet on European Defense

Clara M. O'Donnell — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Europe’s military spending is in free fall. As highlighted during a seminar organised by the CER in December as part of the FR-UK Defence Forum, the EU countries combined have reduced defence spending from €200 to €170 billion since the start of the economic crisis in 2008. In response, governments have signed up to a variety of new bilateral and multilateral initiatives. These are designed to limit the impact of budget cuts on their armed forces. But so far, the savings incurred pale in comparison. At the December discussions, participants estimated them at €200 to €300 million. Many sensitivities relating to national security make it hard for governments to implement collaborative defence efforts. But at a time when Europe’s neighbourhood is replete with instability and the United States is scaling back its own armed forces, Europeans need to do more to stem the damage to their militaries.

Notwithstanding their budget cuts, taken together EU states are still the second largest defence spenders in the world. And not all European countries are reducing the level of funding to their armed forces. According to a 2011 study for the European Parliament, Finland and Denmark have maintained military spending steady in recent years. Poland and Sweden have increased it.

But even prior to the economic crisis, most European countries spent less than 2 per cent of their GDP on defence – even though NATO members are in theory committed to devote at least that much to their militaries. And, according to the European Parliament study, most middle-sized European countries have cut their defence spending by 10 to 15 per cent since 2009. Some of the smaller EU states, including Latvia and Lithuania, have cut by more than 20 per cent. Britain is reducing its military budget by 7.5 per cent over four years. And according to Andrew Dorman from Chatham House, the actual reduction is nearly 25 per cent because the ministry of defence has many unfunded liabilities and has to unexpectedly pay for the replacement of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. France is expected to scale back its military once it announces its new defence priorities this year. As a result, US officials warn that Europeans will soon be incapable of deploying a mission like the one they sent to Libya in 2011.

European governments have acknowledged that closer co-operation between their armed forces could offset – at least partly – the impact of such large spending cuts. They have introduced some welcome measures. For example, last year, 14 countries agreed to buy surveillance drones for a joint NATO-run squadron. Eighteen states now take part in an EU network to facilitate maritime surveillance through information exchanges. Last April, Belgium and the Netherlands decided to co-operate in helicopter maintenance. In September, Bulgaria and Romania agreed terms to make it easier to police each other’s airspace. Britain and France are training together to develop a new joint expeditionary force. And the UK and other Europeans are providing logistical support to France’s deployment in Mali.

But governments remain wary of pooling military capabilities. They still fear that their partners may block their access to shared equipment if they disapprove of a particular operation. States also disagree on the best way to develop new military technologies. For example, the UK wants to acquire defence equipment with France bilaterally. But since President François Hollande has been in office, France has become increasingly keen to allow other European countries to take part in Franco-British procurement projects. Many countries are averse to committing to ambitious initiatives because they know that these can be costly in the short term – last year Britain notably abandoned its plans to adapt its aircraft carrier so that French planes could land on it, after realising how expensive the adjustments would be. Several EU states are loath to integrate their defence companies with those of other countries, as Germany illustrated when it refused to support the merger between BAE and EADS. Finally, governments do not want their defence firms to lose out on contracts. Many in France worry that several of the cost-saving projects proposed by NATO, including missile defence and the joint purchases of surveillance drones, favour US defence companies.

Europeans need to overcome some of these continued aversions to co-operation. Even though governments would prefer to avoid using military force, they might not have a choice. Several conflicts risk undermining stability in Europe’s southern periphery over the next few years – not least the partial take-over of Mali by Islamist militants, where French forces have already felt compelled to intervene, the civil war in Syria and a possible standoff with Iran. And Washington, struggling with its own budgetary constraints, wants its allies across the world to take more responsibility for their regional security.

President Hollande’s government can allay some of the French concerns about the lack of European industrial participation within NATO cost-saving initiatives. To do so, Paris could suggest projects to the alliance which involve equipment made in Europe. As a participant from the CER seminar has proposed, Berlin, London, Paris or Rome could sell some of their old fighter jets to countries in Central Europe which want to strengthen their arsenals cheaply.

As suggested by another participant at the December discussions, Europeans should buy cutting edge military capabilities only when it is necessary. Over the last few decades, the cost of defence equipment has grown exponentially. Even when their economies are stronger, European governments will increasingly struggle to arm their militaries. In some cases, national security will require governments to continue acquiring the most technologically sophisticated capabilities. But for less sensitive tasks, governments should explore cheaper equipment options and a greater use of civilian suppliers, for example in communications.

Finally, European governments must ensure that they do not duplicate their efforts to build the next generation of drones. European governments have long argued that it has been very inefficient for Europe to have three manned fighter jets programmes (Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen). The duplication has prevented the various programs from benefiting from economies of scale, it has curtailed interoperability amongst European armed forces, and it has led Europeans to compete against each other in export markets.

Over the next few years, Europeans will decide how to develop unmanned combat aircraft and other sophisticated drones. It is still unclear how governments will proceed. France and Britain have announced plans to develop next generation drones bilaterally. EADS and Finmeccanica, Italy’s largest defence company, have floated intentions to do the same. And France has agreed to work on unmanned aircraft with Germany, too.

Under current spending trends, there is insufficient demand in Europe to support several competitive next generation large unmanned aircraft programmes. So Europeans must avoid several unco-ordinated efforts taking place simultaneously. EU countries could barely afford duplicating expensive aerospace programmes prior to the economic crisis. They definitely cannot afford it now.

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: Centre for European Reform

U.S. Foreign Policy After the Presidential Election: What Should Europeans Expect?

Clara M. O'Donnell — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

INTRODUCTION

Because of America’s financial woes, most of the political debates leading up to the U.S. presidential and Congressional elections this November have focused on the American economy. Democrats and Republicans vying for office have been acrimoniously disputing how to bring the U.S. back from the brink of its fiscal cliff. But the two contenders for the White House, the incumbent president, Barack Obama, and the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, have also been sparring about U.S. foreign policy.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has accused President Obama of being the most feckless American president since Jimmy Carter, conceding to America’s enemies while throwing its allies “under the bus”. The Republican candidate is promising to restore US global leadership by rebuilding its military might and defending its values.

President Obama, by contrast, has accused Romney of being “stuck in a Cold War time warp” and “reckless” with national security. His campaign has warned that the former governor wants to take the U.S. back to the bellicose “with us or-against-us approach” of the Bush years. But for all the heavy criticisms exchanged between both presidential candidates on matters of national security, U.S. foreign policy under a second Obama term or a Romney administration would have a lot in common. This paper discusses the reasons why. It also highlights the few areas where a second Obama term and a Romney administration would differ, and reflects on the implications for Europeans.

Download » (PDF)

Downloads

Download the report

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: Centre for European Reform

Image Source: © Christian Hartmann / Reuters

Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Agenda

Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:30:00 -0400

Follow @BrookingsFP

Editor's Note: This blog post was updated on October 9, 2012.

On October 8, 2012, presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered a speech on U.S. foreign policy at the Virginia Military Institute. Brookings experts examine the foreign policy platform laid out by Governor Romney in the VMI speech. Suzanne Maloney assesses Romney's remarks on Iran and advises how the Obama administration should respond to his speech. Shadi Hamid takes a closer look at a common narrative that emerged during the remarks claiming that the Obama administration has abdicated America's leadership role in the Middle East. Justin Vaïsse examines the assertive stance Romney took during his speech. Bruce Riedel focuses on Romney's statements regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, al Qaeda, and Afghanistan. Michael O'Hanlon lays out his views on the most compelling elements of the speech and how it might help bring the foreign policy debate to the forefront in the closing weeks of the presidential election. Clara O'Donnell explores what a Republican win in November would mean for Europe.

Mitt Romney's Unsettling Track Record on Iran
Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Foreign Policy

Predictably, Iran figured prominently in Mitt Romney’s address on Monday detailing his foreign policy positions. The issue of how to handle the threats posed by Iran has proven a reliable feature of American campaign debates for more than three decades. This reflects Washington’s deeply-held concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and support for terrorism, as well as the sense that Iran’s cartoonish clerics and messianic bombast provide a convenient foil for American politicians from both parties to exude a brawny patriotism and appeal to pro-Israeli audiences.

Gratuitous swagger on Iran has long been a part of the Romney repertoire. He has likened the Islamic Republic with the Soviet Union’s “evil empire,” tossing in an analogy to Nazi Germany for good measure. Romney has suggested that his own election is the only means of preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and has disparaged the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts on Iran as “a symbol of weakness and impotence.” None of this provides serious policy alternatives, nor does it truly reveal how a Romney administration might actually approach the intractable issue of Iran.

After all, despite all the tough talk, the track record of both U.S. political parties on Iran is far more complicated. A quick review of the historical record would show that Democratic administrations have been responsible for each of the most significant intensifications of sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, Republican administrations have tried to ply cooperation from Tehran with weapons sales – Ronald Reagan – and have not only sought talks with Iran but actually engaged in them – George W. Bush, whose administration's dialogue with Iranian diplomats in 2001-2003 stands as the single most successful use of diplomatic engagement with Iran since the end of the hostage crisis.

But while his posturing on Iran was not in and of itself new, Romney's speech at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday appeared to tweak his standard message on Iran, which until now has focused on the Iranian nuclear standoff. In Monday's speech, however, he opened up a new line of critique of the Obama administration, focused on the President's hands-off approach to the brief but intense protest movement that emerged after the dubious 2009 reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "And yet when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009; when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world; when they cried out, are you with us or are you with them, the American president was silent," Romney asserted.

The argument that Obama betrayed Iran's struggling democracy movement was a throwaway line, apparently intended to link Romney's argument on Iran to his broader critique of the current administration's handling of the Arab spring. But it raises an important issue, one that Romney will surely revisit in future foreign policy speeches and in the upcoming debate. The accusation that Obama mishandled the 2009 protests is particularly problematic for the President, whose partisans and advisers often seem discomforted by the administration's restraint back in 2009. Especially in the light of the subsequent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, many Iranians and even some Obama backers question whether Washington was on the right side of history in keeping its distance from the first salvos of Iran's "Green Movement."

But the administration's self-recriminations and Romney's casual critiques are both wrong. There is simply no evidence that more forceful American advocacy could have tipped the balance in favor of Iranian protestors in 2009. The Iranian Green Movement did not falter because of Obama's actions or lack thereof, but rather because of the divisions within its leadership, the lack of a coherent strategy, and the Iranian regime's willingness to use force, as well as the Iranian public's corresponding unwillingness to continue coming to the streets in the face of that force. All these factors distinguish what happened in Iran in 2009 from the subsequent triumphs in Tahrir Square and elsewhere in the Arab world.

More to the point, Romney's grandstanding on Iran's long-held democratic aspirations does not offer a credible answer to the basic question that will face the next administration in dealing with Iran: is it possible to change not simply the most dangerous policies of the current Iranian government, but the nature and character of that government itself? After all, it is hard to imagine that a durable resolution to the nuclear crisis can be achieved without constructing a viable modus vivendi with Tehran, something that would appear to be unlikely given the paranoia and resentment of the current Iranian leadership. Given the long memories of the American role in the 1953 coup that unseated Iran’s elected prime minister, and the fresher memories of the disastrous U.S. experience in picking winners in Iraq, regime change is an appropriately dirty word for American policymakers in contemplating options toward Tehran. And yet there ought to be a serious conversation about how Washington and the world can cultivate a better future for Iran and encourage the emergence of responsible, representative leaders in that country.

Here, Mitt Romney’s track record is particularly unsettling. His advisors include advocates for the Mojahideen-e Khalq, a discredited, cult-like exile group that has been reluctantly removed from the U.S. government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations after a well-greased lobbying campaign. Other advisors distinguished themselves as proponents of Ahmad Chalabi and the prospect of an American ‘cakewalk’ in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Romney himself boasts about his decision while governor to deny state police protection to former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami during a 2006 speech at Harvard University, apparently failing to appreciate that Khatami was responsible for efforts to strengthen Iran’s electoral institutions and curtail its worst abuses, as well as for a two-year suspension of its uranium enrichment program.

Given the ambivalence among his own team about the approach to Iran’s 2009 protest movement, Obama may be tempted to duck any challenge from Romney on this issue. He should not – rather, the President should use any Romney moralizing to challenge the governor for specific policy proposals that would advance a democratic future in Iran. It would be a welcome relief to hear both candidates offer serious ideas rather than more empty slogans on Iran.

Romney Asked the Right Questions About U.S. Policy in the Middle East
Shadi Hamid, Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center, and Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Foreign Policy

With his Middle East speech on Monday, Mitt Romney – after much fumbling – seems to have finally found a distinct and somewhat coherent foreign policy message. Many of Romney’s critics quickly dismissed the speech. “There’s absolutely nothing in this speech,” said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations, while former secretary of state Madeleine Albright called Romney “very shallow.” Romney may not have provided the right answers, but he asked many of the right questions. In his remarks, a common narrative emerged – that the Obama administration, in its desire to reduce its footprint in the Middle East, has abdicated America’s leadership role in the region. Oddly enough, this perception is not a Republican fiction but is increasingly widespread within the Middle East itself. Obama, the argument goes, is a weak president who can be pushed around, with little consequence.

To what extent, though, is perceived American “decline” a function of specific policies choices or is it a more general issue of the projection of U.S. power, and how that power is perceived by our friends and enemies in the region? Romney seems to be arguing that the latter, however hard to measure, counts for a lot. Indeed, the debate over “leading” versus “leading from behind,” as tired as it might sound, reflects real differences in philosophy between the candidates.

In Syria, such differences have obvious and practical implications on the ground. Romney argued, with good reason, that “the President has failed to lead in Syria.” He pledged to prioritize the coordination and arming of rebel forces (although he did not specify how directly the U.S. would be involved). In contrast, the Obama administration has actively discouraged Saudi Arabia and Qatar from arming the rebels, as Robert Worth recently reported in the New York Times. Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar’s state minister for foreign affairs, stressed the importance of getting more advanced weapons to the opposition. “But first we need the backing of the United States,” he said, in a rare, public criticism of the Obama administration. In Turkey, the feeling is closer to one of betrayal, as Turkish officials find themselves alone, on the brink of war with their Syrian neighbors, and an international community that seems uninterested in doing much about it. That is to say nothing of Syrian rebels themselves who have been calling for either arms or outright military intervention since last year. A year is a long time to wait, and they may be turning against the United States. As a member of Kafr Takharim’s revolutionary council said: “We read in the media that we are receiving things. But we haven’t seen it. We only received speeches from the West.” When Romney quoted a Syrian woman saying “we will not forget that that you forgot about us,” he was conveying a real, palpable sense that, in the eyes of a growing number of Arabs and Turks, the United States and Europe have abandoned the Syrian people. The memory of that betrayal, if it continues, is likely to have real consequences for the United States and its allies.

A second notable contrast was on aid conditionality. Romney said he would “make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East.” Regarding Egypt in particular, he spoke of including “clear conditions on our aid.” Nearly two years into the Arab uprisings, the Obama administration has failed to tie any existing or new aid to explicit benchmarks on political reform and democratization. U.S. military aid to Egypt continued to flow despite egregious anti-democratic behavior on the part of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, including waging war on civil society, dissolving a democratically elected parliament, reinstating martial law, and unilaterally stripping the presidency of many of its powers. Meanwhile, the political situation in Jordan – the second-largest per capita recipient of U.S. aid – continues to deteriorate. But a discussion of reformulating U.S. assistance there has not even begun.

What would Romney actually do about Jordan, though? Here, the tensions in Romney’s foreign policy approach become all too obvious. In his speech, Romney spoke of standing by our “friends,” but what about our friends – the leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – who have actually become more repressive in the wake of the same Arab Spring that Romney claims to support? Instead of urging Gulf countries to take reform seriously, Romney pledged to “deepen our cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.”

It is also remarkable that Romney managed to run through an entire speech on the Middle East without mentioning the word “Islamist” even once. Neoconservatives within the Republican Party prioritize democracy promotion but, like the Tea Party faction of the party, they also fear the effect Islamists will have on U.S. interests, including Israel’s security (I discuss intra-Republican differences in this recent Brookings paper). The problem is that democratic openings inevitably benefit Islamist parties. Again, the tensions here seem irreconcilable, which is probably why Romney avoided addressing them.

It was President George W. Bush who once said that “America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” Unfortunately, they are not, and won’t be anytime soon. Sometimes, difficult choices have to be made, but Romney does not appear willing to make them. But, then again, neither does Obama. The Arab revolts have, in some ways, closed the gap between interests and ideals (as in Libya and Syria), yet, at the same time, they have made the policy contradictions all the more obvious (as in Bahrain). Whatever else might be said about it, Romney’s speech did us the service of highlighting those contradictions. Instead of doubling down on President Obama’s flawed Middle East record, Obama’s supporters (and, if he wins, Obama himself) should engage with the substance of Republican critiques and outline a vision for re-thinking and re-orienting U.S. policy in the region. Otherwise, the contradictions – which have damaged U.S. credibility in the region for decades – will persist. And so too will the consequences.

Romney Offers Clear Choices. But Are They Sustainable?
Justin Vaïsse, Director of Research, Center on the United States and Europe, and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy

Contrary to the strategy he followed in the first presidential debate last Thursday, Mitt Romney did not try to strike a more moderate tone in his foreign policy speech on Monday. Instead, he maintained a hawkish, neoconservative line. He thus confirmed the two campaign choices he made in the summer of 2011 – but opened himself to questions about the economics of his assertiveness.

The first choice is to ignore the growing number of Republicans and Independents who are tired of foreign interventions (see here and here) and are not convinced that defense spending should be increased. This was not always the case. In June 2011 for example, Romney said it was time to "bring our troops home" from Afghanistan "as soon as we possibly can." This rhetoric was replaced by a much more hawkish stance, especially in his speech at The Citadel a year ago, where he started talking about "a new American century," insisting soon afterwards that it was "not time for America to cut and run" from Afghanistan.

In his speech of Monday, Romney acknowledged the existence of this anti-interventionist strain ("I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading"), but only to unambiguously reassert his preference for an internationalist and hawkish posture. In purely electoral terms, it means that he expects more votes from his attacks on President Obama's perceived weakness and lack of leadership than he fears losing them from anti-interventionist Republicans and Independents, or from his association with the neoconservatives.

That is the second choice Mitt Romney made in the summer of 2011. He adopted a foreign policy line which checks all the boxes of neoconservatism, the school of thought associated with the administration of George W. Bush and the 2003 Iraq war. That foreign policy tradition, which dates back to the 1970s, is based on five pillars (internationalism, primacy, unilateralism, militarism and democracy), which were all present in one form or another in Romney's speech on Monday, most notably in sentences like "if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker" or "our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more."

Romney's positioning is thus very clear, but he opens himself to criticism on various counts. First, given Obama's image on national security, which is unusually strong for a Democratic candidate thanks to the Bin Laden raid and his decisive use of drones, it might not be the best electoral strategy to use the traditional line of attack of Democrats as weak and insufficiently patriotic. Second, it is hard for Romney to present himself as more assertive than Obama without crossing the fine line between hawkishness and adventurism. Whether on Syria, Iran, Afghanistan or China, Romney outlines policies that are actually not very different from the President's; you have to believe the rhetoric in order to detect the existence of a real gap.

Lastly, there might be cause for skepticism about the fiscal and diplomatic sustainability of his foreign policy. Even without buying into the current wave of declinism, it is hard to deny that America's power relative to that of other countries has indeed decreased, and a posture of uncompromising hawkishness (Iran), toughness (Russia, China), or conditionality (Egypt; foreign aid) vis-à-vis the rest of the world –what James Traub dubbed the "more enemies, fewer friends doctrine" – might not be the most effective way to fulfill America's objectives. This is all the more true that America's resources will necessarily be strained in the next four years, and that the issue of the debt will loom large.

This leads to the most serious questions about Romney's speech. Although he has found it difficult, because the Middle East has a way to always force itself back to the agenda, President Obama has tried to redistribute American diplomatic and military assets away from that region and towards emerging powers, especially in the Asia-Pacific, where the stakes are highest in the long term. More generally, he has tried to rebalance U.S. foreign policy towards global and economic issues and away from land wars and counter-terrorism. In his speech of Monday, the Romney outlined a world which closely resembled the one George W. Bush inhabited, as if frozen in time circa 2005. He didn't really talk about China and the Asia-Pacific region, and mentioned economics only when talking about free trade. One only needs to read Robert Zoellick's excellent analysis "The Currency of Power" to be convinced of the imperious necessity to integrate economics into any foreign policy strategy. Such integration was thoroughly lacking in Romney's speech. But since he picked Zoellick to head his national security transition team, perhaps that dimension will eventually be added, if he reaches the White House?

Governor Romney's Approach to the Middle East
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Foreign Policy

Governor Romney's foreign policy speech at VMI is a timely and constructive contribution to the presidential campaign. He has delivered a thoughtful critique of the Obama record in the Middle East and provided some specific policy proposals. Importantly, Gov. Romney stated his commitment to a two state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, an issue his previous statements had left confused at best. Romney gave no road map for how to secure a peace agreement but he acknowledged the need to do so.

Romney also rightly assessed the threat still posed by al Qaeda. It has been bloodied in Pakistan by the 300 drone strikes since Obama's inauguration and the death of Osama bin Laden but it is not defeated. The chaos across the Arab world has opened the door for al Qaeda's comeback from Yemen to Mali. It is indeed clear now it had a role in the Benghazi attack on the 11th anniversary of 911. Aside from calls to leadership, however, we don't have much answer to how a Romney administration will fight al Qaeda differently. Standing by Israel, stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions and keeping close ties to Saudi Arabia may be good policies in their own right but don't really address the al Qaeda challenge. Drones indeed are not a strategy, as the VMI speech notes, but what is the strategy to fight al Qaeda?

The governor was helpfully a little more clear on Afghanistan but here he also left room for more to come. He appears to accept the 2014 date for transition to Afghan leadership but seems to open the door to a reappraisal if battlefield conditions warrant. That is smart, we need flexibility. Does he mean he will keep more troops longer if his generals say they are needed? The even harder problem is how to deal with Pakistan which backs the Taliban and harbors its leaders but which has gotten $25 billion in aid from two administrations since 911, one Republican and one Democrat. How can we defeat the Taliban if Pakistan insists on backing them? Is Romney still opposed to talks with the Taliban as he stated last spring?

The VMI speech is a good start to what needs to be a far more vigorous and detailed debate in the next month. Both candidates need to be much sharper on the challenges ahead. The war in Afghanistan is eleven years old today but a successful outcome is still elusive. The Arab awakening is changing the politics of an entire region more decisively than any event in its recent history. The debate is critical. The time for vague soundbites is over.

A Good Speech for America, Regardless Who Wins
Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of Research, Foreign Policy at Brookings, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair, and Senior Fellow, 21st Century Defense Initiative, Foreign Policy at Brookings

While I did not agree with everything Governor Romney said in his foreign policy speech at VMI today, and while I have particular differences of opinion with the Governor over the necessity of his proposed defense spending levels, he delivered a good speech on balance. However, the Governor’s critiques of President Obama’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the Iranian elections of 2009, as well as the Administration’s “pivot” towards Asia in recent years, were not compelling. Romney’s promise not to show flexibility towards Russia on missile defense was too categorical as well, but one must expect differences of opinion during a presidential campaign.

That said, the speech was still effective in many ways, because Romney conveyed a sense of sustained American engagement with the world that is welcome at a time when our domestic economic situation could easily produce a “Come home, America” mentality among the voting public. Instead, Romney talked about being patient in Afghanistan, and doing more to help the Libyan revolution in language that echoed that of nation-building advocates of the past. Romney also spoke of helping the Syrian opposition a bit more - without dragging the United States into war - and consolidating aid programs under a single leader in the U.S. government, which would make these programs more effective and would support certain Middle East countries in their efforts to make their revolutions succeed on terms that overlap with American interests.

These ideas generally make sense to me individually, and taken together they suggest ongoing American leadership in the world, regardless of who wins the election. I don’t know which party the speech will help most on November 6, but on balance I think it is a speech—and a type of foreign policy debate—that is good for the country either way.

What Romney Would Mean for Europe
Centre for European Reform, October/November 2012
Clara M. O'Donnell, Nonresident Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe, Foreign Policy

As the U.S. elections approach, Mitt Romney’s sometimes bellicose rhetoric on national security is raising European eyebrows. But many in Washington believe that if the Republican contender were to become president, U.S. policies might not differ much from the last four years. Despite Romney’s strong criticism of Barack Obama, some of the challenger’s views on foreign policy issues are similar to the president’s. And the points on which they disagree may matter little: U.S. presidents rarely implement their more outlandish campaign pledges. In any case, Congress will continue to set limits on U.S. policy on issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and nuclear arms control, whoever the president. But, if Mitt Romney genuinely believes much of his foreign policy rhetoric, a Republican victory in November could mean difficult times for transatlantic relations.

The former governor has, for example, identified Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” He considers Obama’s ‘reset’ with Moscow to have been a failure. He opposed ratification of the New START treaty on strategic weapons reductions because it supposedly allows Russia to expand its nuclear arsenal – Romney has notably warned that the treaty, unprecedentedly, allows Russia to mount intercontinental ballistic missiles on bombers. The Republican candidate has also strongly criticised Obama’s missile defence plan as less technologically reliable and ambitious than that of George W. Bush, and for downgrading the involvement of U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic.

Europeans, however, welcomed the U.S.-Russia reset. Many of them worry about Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism and non-co-operation on Syria. But most Europeans think the reset has made Russia more helpful on Afghanistan and Iran. They like New START, and many EU governments will have been confused by Romney’s concerns about bombers equipped with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Indeed it would be impossible for a bomber to take off with such a heavy load. Even EU countries that are more hawkish on Russia are likely to see Romney’s views as unnecessarily antagonistic. Initial concerns in Poland and the Czech Republic about the Obama administration’s commitment to their security have been largely addressed, after the US placed fighter jets in central Europe and started holding regular military exercises there. And Poland has been working on its own reset with Russia in recent years.

Read the full article »

Authors

Image Source: © Jason Reed / Reuters

What Romney Would Mean for Europe

Clara M. O'Donnell — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Read the full article »

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: Centre for European Reform

Image Source: © Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO's Largest Members

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Introduction:

There have long been debates about the sustainability of the transatlantic alliance and accusations amongst allies of unequal contributions to burden-sharing. But since countries on both sides of the Atlantic have begun introducing new – and often major – military spending cuts in response to the economic crisis, concerns about the future of transatlantic defense cooperation have become more pronounced.

A growing number of senior officials are now publicly questioning the future of NATO. In June 2011, in the midst of NATO’s operation in Libya, Robert Gates, then US Defense Secretary, stated that Europe faced the prospect of “collective military irrelevance” and that unless the continent stemmed the deterioration of its armed forces, NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal future”. Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent Representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, have argued that “if defense spending continues to decline, NATO may not be able to replicate its success in Libya in another decade”. The alliance’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has warned that “if European defense spending cuts continue, Europe’s ability to be a stabilizing force even in its neighborhood will rapidly disappear”. While Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide has claimed that “exercises have shown that NATO’s ability to conduct conventional military operations has markedly declined. […] Not only is NATO’s ability to defend its member states questionable, it might actually deteriorate further as financial pressures in Europe and the US force cuts in military spending”.

In order to explore the validity of these claims, this report outlines trends in military spending across the EU since the onset of the economic crisis. It then analyzes the fallout of the downturn for the armed forces of NATO’s largest defense spenders – France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Downloads

Download the full paper

Authors

Andrew Dorman
Bastian Giegerich
Camille Grand
Adam Grissom
Christian Mölling
Clara M. O'Donnell

Image Source: Omar Sobhani / Reuters

Integrating the EU Defense Market: An Easy Way to Soften the Impact of Military Spending Cuts?

Clara M. O'Donnell — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0400

As many European countries introduce their biggest defence budget cuts in years, they have been exploring ways to limit the impact on their armed forces. There has been much talk within the EU and NATO of increasing ‘pooling and sharing’ of European military capabilities. But many governments are struggling to commit to specific initiatives. They are worried that if they share military assets with their allies, they might disagree about when to use them – as happened during NATO’s deployment to Libya when NATO allies were at odds over taking military action. They fear that their national defence companies will be deprived of vital contracts. They also find it politically difficult to sign up to costly multinational procurement programmes at a time when they are cutting back on personnel.

Another way European governments can limit the damage of military spending cuts is through exploiting two new directives designed to integrate the EU defence market. One directive aims to increase the amount of competition in defence procurement across the EU. The other strives to facilitate the export of defence equipment amongst EU countries. Not only do the directives create the potential for significant savings, but also their use will not be as affected by the obstacles hampering ‘pooling and sharing’ efforts.

EU member states agreed to the two directives in 2008-2009, after acknowledging that the way they regulated their defence markets was highly inefficient – hurting their armed forces, tax payers and defence industries alike. Governments often bought military equipment without resorting to competition. At times, this was necessary to uphold national security. But often states were merely protecting their favourite national suppliers. Since 2005, there had been some improvements in buying habits as EU governments committed to open a substantial amount of their defence procurement to European competition through a voluntary code of conduct within the European Defence Agency. But some states continued to use ‘national security’ as a cloak for protectionism. EU member states also imposed unnecessarily strict export controls on their defence equipment. Defence companies frequently had to ask governments for individual authorisation when they moved a component between plants based in different EU countries. When the armed forces of an EU country bought military equipment from a neighbour, they often had to ask for authorisations to buy anodyne spare parts.

As a result of the directives, since August 2011, EU governments must allow defence companies from across the EU to bid when they procure military equipment, unless there are legitimate security concerns. (In contrast to the Code of Conduct on Defence Procurement, the directive is legally binding.) Since June 2012, EU member states also have to offer ‘general’ and ‘global’ licences. Broadly speaking, military goods which benefit from a general licence can move within EU borders without exporters having to ask for specific licences to do so. Global licences are granted to defence companies and allow them to transfer several goods to various recipients.

But the impact of the directives will depend on the extent to which governments use the new tools at their disposal. The new rules do not define which military equipment is so sensitive that it should remain excluded from EU competition. Some governments could continue to use the exemption widely. Even when states use the new procurement procedures, they could manipulate the criteria within their contracts to favour national suppliers. (Something several have done when using the Code of Conduct.) Governments also get to choose which military goods are safe for general and global licences. If they only provide streamlined licences to a limited amount of equipment, the impact of the new system could be modest.

So far there have been both positive and negative signs about the extent to which EU governments might choose to exploit the new rules. A number of countries have taken advantage of the directives to completely eliminate the need for export authorisations for some military equipment when it is being sent to the armed forces of another EU country, or if it is for the purpose of repairs. At the same time, some countries are being more cautious than others regarding the goods which benefit from general licences. For example, while one EU country now grants general licences to all armoured and protective equipment when sent to the armed forces of a fellow EU state, another only provides general licences to helmets and body armour. A small group of states have not even finished introducing the directive on export controls into their national legislation – even though the deadline was June 2011. Even more disconcertingly, a larger number of EU countries are nearly a year late in transposing the rules on procurement.

Over the next few years, EU member states should not only fully embrace the current provisions of the two directives, they should seek to facilitate EU trade further by establishing a common list of military equipment which would benefit from general licences across the EU. They should also collaborate with the US to ensure that military goods with American components do not undermine the benefits of streamlined internal EU export controls. If some governments continue delaying the transposition of either directive, the European Commission should take them to the European Court of Justice. (Commendably, the European Commission has already begun infringement proceedings against the current laggards.) The Commission should also be ready to call to order EU governments which might try to protect their national defence industry even after adopting the new rules. Although hopefully it will be not be necessary, a few rulings by the European Court of Justice against recalcitrant defence ministries would send a clear signal that from now on governments will be called upon to justify their procurement choices.

A more efficient EU defence market might unfortunately lead to some job losses as less efficient European defence companies lose out on contracts. But it may at least increase jobs in the better European firms and help ensure that Europe’s defence industry remains globally competitive. Streamlined export controls will also require some trust amongst European governments to ensure that military equipment is not re-exported to undesirable third parties. But the level of trust required for a government to send a spare part for an armoured vehicle to a fellow EU member state without an individual authorisation will be significantly lower than the trust required to pool aircraft carriers. In addition, integrating the EU defence market will not need any large investments upfront of the sort required when governments agree to large multinational procurement programmes. At a time when many EU member states are cutting back their defence expenditure by 10 per cent, and some have reduced it by over 20 per cent, governments must exploit all the possible cost-saving measures at their disposal – and those measures which are comparatively easier to introduce, even more so.

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: European Union Institute for Security Studies

Image Source: Lehtikuva Lehtikuva / Reuters

Are Europeans a Better Transatlantic Security Partner than Meets the Eye?

Clara M. O'Donnell and Patryk Pawlak — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0400

The latest wave of European military spending cuts is swelling the ranks of Americans who believe that Europeans are not contributing enough to global security. But this assessment is too harsh. It is true that Europeans spend less on defence than their American counterparts. They have also been less willing to use force in recent years. But the US itself is reassessing the merit of its military interventions over the last decade. And when one takes into account policies that are not strictly military, such as aid, sanctions and homeland security, Europeans are making some significant contributions to international stability.

A number of European countries are undoubtedly falling short of their NATO and EU promises to develop a global military reach. Many governments have been slow to transform their militaries from immobile forces designed to counter a Soviet invasion into rapidly deployable combat troops. Even prior to the economic crisis, most European NATO allies had stopped spending the alliance's agreed benchmark of 2 per cent of GDP on defence. And Nicolas Gros-Verheyde, the influential French blogger, estimates that the economic downturn will lead to a 30 per cent drop in total military spending by EU member-states between 2006 and 2014. As a result, even if America cuts its own defence budget by $1 trillion over the next decade – as Congress is currently considering – the US military will still receive more than twice as much as the armed forces of all EU countries combined.

Since the end of the Cold War, a number of European countries have also been reluctant to deploy troops, particularly for heavy combat operations. Many governments have refused to send their soldiers to the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. More than half of the European countries in NATO did not participate in the deployment to Libya. And many EU military and civilian missions have been too small to make a significant impact. Washington critics are particularly dismissive of the 60 EU officials advising Iraqis on how to improve their criminal justice system and the approximately 500 EU police trainers in Afghanistan.

Europe's recent military track record derives from the fact that most Europeans have not felt threatened. Many also do not believe that war should be used to obtain 'justice'. In a recent GMF survey of the US and 12 EU countries, only 33 per cent of Europeans believed that war is sometimes necessary to obtain justice – in contrast to 75 per cent of Americans. In addition, Europeans have been particularly doubtful of the merit of Washington's use of force over the past decade, be it Afghanistan or Iraq.

In light of this mindset, Europeans have actually been quite active on the military front. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2011, Britain, France and Germany were still amongst the ten largest military spenders in the world (ranking third, fourth and eighth). The combined defence expenditure of European NATO members is still more than twice what China spends – even though Europeans do not reap the full benefits of it because they duplicate many of their military efforts.

For several years, European troops made up more than half of NATO's mission in Afghanistan. And on a per capita basis, Denmark and Estonia have suffered more casualties there than the US. Europeans undertook 90 per cent of the strike missions in Libya. In addition, many of the EU's missions, even if modest, are still helping to stabilise countries across the world. In the Gulf of Aden, an EU naval force protects vulnerable boats from pirates, including the World Food Programme vessels which deliver food to Somali people. In the months to come, the EU will deploy civilians to help the government in Niger reform its security sector (a country where, according to European governments, Islamist militants threaten international security). EU experts will also soon help improve the security at the international airport in Juba, the capital of newly independent South Sudan.

In any case, American policy-makers are themselves reconsidering the merits of how the US has used force over the last decade. The Obama administration has been extricating US armed forces from Iraq and Afghanistan – even though in both countries, the US has not achieved the level of stability which it had initially aspired to. The government's new defence guidance stresses that the US does not intend to deploy similar missions in future. It also argues that America cannot meet its security challenges through military force alone and that it must strengthen all the 'tools' of American power, including diplomacy, development, intelligence and homeland security.

These are areas in which Europeans are significant players. Combined, the EU institutions and member-states are the largest aid donor in the world. According to the OECD, they spent €69 billion in 2011 – notwithstanding the fact that some European countries reduced their budgets because of the economic crisis. This is more than twice the amount the US gave. Between 2002 and 2013, the EU institutions and member-states will notably have provided €11 billion in aid to Afghanistan. And in response to the Arab Spring, the EU institutions alone have offered nearly €7 billion over three years.

Europeans also invest significant resources in homeland security, even if budgets risk declining somewhat over the next few years because of the economic turmoil. Based on the latest OECD figures, the 21 EU member-states which belong to the organisation spent nearly €240 billion on 'public order and safety' in 2010 – nearly 90 per cent of what the US spent. This covers police forces, intelligence services, the judiciary and ministries of internal affairs. The US is a beneficiary of this spending too – in addition to supporting Europe's internal stability, these bodies tackle the international terrorism and organised crime that afflict Europeans and their allies alike.

European countries are also increasing the EU's involvement in security matters – including through the EU's bilateral ties with third countries. One EU agency, Frontex, monitors the Union's southern and eastern border, while another, Europol, tackles organised crime. EU funds for homeland security, although still modest, are increasing despite the economic crisis. From 2014 to 2020, the EU is expected to spend nearly €10 billion in this field. The money will notably fund research into intelligent maritime surveillance systems and help partner countries across the world fight criminal networks and monitor their borders more effectively.

European governments also leverage the EU's large common market to pursue their foreign policy objectives. They offer preferential trade ties to support the economic development of numerous fragile countries across the world, and to encourage them to improve their governance. Pakistan is one of the states which qualify for some of the EU's most generous trade concessions. EU countries also impose heavy sanctions on countries which they believe are undermining international security. Among other things, the EU recently introduced an oil embargo against Iran – even though the measure is inflicting significant economic hardship on Greece and other EU states which were already struggling with the financial crisis. And through the offer of EU and NATO membership, Europeans (and the US) have managed to spread stability across the European continent.

The fact that Europeans wield such extensive foreign policy 'tools' does not mean they always use them wisely. Nor should it allow Europeans to neglect their armed forces. Governments must ensure that their peacekeeping efforts are not hampered by inadequate military equipment, and that they retain the capacity to respond to a serious military threat if one were to emerge. But America is less alone in upholding global security than some in Washington would suggest.

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell
Patryk Pawlak

Publication: Centre for European Reform

Image Source: Ognen Teofilovski / Reuters

Missile Defense: Cooperation or Contention?

Thu, 17 May 2012 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 17, 2012
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

U.S. plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe have posed major issues for U.S.-Russian and NATO-Russian relations over the past five years. Recently, NATO proposed a cooperative missile defense arrangement with Russia, but Moscow has proven unwilling to engage until it receives certain specific guarantees from the United States. This continuing stalemate puts cooperative missile defense in Europe at risk. Can the sides work out a cooperative arrangement or will missile defense become, as it was in 2007 and 2008, a contentious issue that negatively affects the broader U.S.-Russia and NATO-Russia relationships?

On May 17, the Arms Control Initiative at Brookings hosted a discussion exploring these issues and marking the release of the new Brookings Arms Control series paper, “Missile Defense: Cooperation or Contention.” Panelists include David Hoffman, Foreign Policy magazine contributing editor and author of The Dead Hand (Doubleday, 2009); Arms Control Association Senior Fellow Greg Thielmann; and Brookings Senior Fellow Steven Pifer, director of the Arms Control Initiative. Brookings Fellow Clara O’Donnell moderated the discussion.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

Missile Defense: Cooperation or Contention?

Event Materials

20120517_missile_defense_transcript_corrected

Participants

Panelists

Contributing Editor

Senior Fellow

NATO, Deterrence and Reassurance: Looking Toward the Chicago Summit and Beyond

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

April 16, 2012
2:00 PM - 5:15 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

At the November 2010 summit in Lisbon, NATO leaders commissioned a deterrence and defense posture review which, among other things, examines the rationale and requirement for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. The review will be presented to NATO leaders at the upcoming summit in Chicago from May 20-21. What questions and perspectives shape NATO’s consideration of its nuclear posture? Given possible changes in NATO forces in the coming decade, are there other steps the alliance should take to maintain a deterrent that reassures its members that their security will be safeguarded?

On April 16, the Arms Control Initiative and Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings hosted a discussion on these issues. The first panel examined European, Russian and American perspectives on the deterrence and defense posture review, as well as arms control options for tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons. The second panel looked beyond the Chicago summit, discussing how NATO should address deterrence and reassurance challenges over the coming decade. The event marked the release of the new U.S. Army War College book, completed in cooperation with Dickinson College, Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, and a new Carnegie paper, produced in cooperation with Brookings and the Royal United Services Institute, titled “Looking Beyond the Chicago Summit: U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe and the Future of the Alliance.”

After each panel, participants took audience questions.

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20120416_nato_chicago

Participants

Panelists

Malcolm Chalmers

Research Director
Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies

Jeffrey McCausland

Distinguished Visiting Professor of Research and Minerva Chair, Strategic Studies Institute
U.S. Army War College

Leo Michel

Distinguished Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies
National Defense University

Thomas Nichols

Professor of National Security Affairs
U.S. Naval War College

George Perkovich

Vice President for Studies and
Director, Nuclear Policy Program

Paul Schulte

Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program and Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Implications of Multipolarity for Central Europe’s Security

Clara M. O'Donnell — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0400

For years, Central Europeans have fretted that the United States might withdraw from the European security arena in order to focus on more pressing issues in other parts of the world. Over the last 12 months, these concerns have been exacerbated. Last spring, for the first time in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) history, Washington refused to maintain a leading role in a major operation of the alliance. When Britain and France convinced their allies to deploy to Libya, the Obama Administration — which did not perceive Libya as a strategic priority — insisted on scaling back its military contribution after the initial phase of the operation. Then in January 2012, the United States — facing significant budgetary strains — announced that it will make large cuts to its armed forces over the next decade, as it shifts its attention from Europe to the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Since, Washington has also declared that it will remove approximately 7,000 combat troops from Europe.

America’s withdrawal from Europe is relative. The new defense guidance stresses that the United States is still wedded to its NATO Article 5 obligations. America’s military footprint in Europe will remain larger than in any other region of the world. The Obama Administration is pressing ahead with missile defense on the continent. It is committed to a variety of measures designed to demonstrate to European allies — in particular those in Central Europe — that the United States still cares for their security, such as the deployment of U.S. patriot missiles and a U.S. air force detachment to Poland. And in a further attempt to stress Washington’s continued commitment to Europe, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced in February that the United States will contribute troops to the NATO Response Force.

Nevertheless, over the next few years, as America cuts back its armed forces, there might well be other occasions when Washington decides not to provide full military support to address conflicts that are of primary interest to Europeans, but which do not fall under Article 5.

America’s rebalanced military priorities would not pose a problem for Europeans if the latter delivered on their long-held promises to take on more responsibility for transatlantic security. Within NATO, European governments have repeatedly committed to spend two percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. They have also promised to acquire the military capabilities that would allow them to participate in operations abroad. Since the late 1990s, in light of the wars in the Balkans, European countries have been making similar pledges within the European Union (EU) as well — specifically in order to have the means to address conflicts in which the United States might not want to be involved.

But even when faced with Washington’s military cutbacks, most European governments continue to flout their NATO and EU commitments. By 2008 only five European countries spent two percent or more of their GDP on defense. And in response to the subsequent economic crisis, many have been introducing new — often significant — military spending cuts. Even several of the European countries which frequently express concerns about their own security have been dramatically cutting back spending. According to NATO figures, in 2010 Slovakia reduced its defense budget to 1.3 percent, Hungary to 1.1 percent and Lithuania — which has not expended more than1.2 percent since it joined the Alliance — spent just 0.9 percent. Many of the military equipment shortfalls identified within NATO and the EU remain, among others, the surveillance assets, which were notably lacking in the recent deployment in Libya.

There has been much talk both in NATO and the EU of increasing the level of cooperation between European armed forces in order to offset the impact of military spending cuts. And with strong backing from Washington, both organizations have managed to get Europeans to agree to some cost-saving joint efforts. NATO’s air-policing mission over the Baltic States has notably been extended, and several countries have agreed to develop Allied Ground Surveillance — a drone that will increase NATO’s intelligence capabilities. But the current initiatives are modest given the size of the spending cuts. And according to officials, many countries — including those of Central Europe — remain reluctant to implement more ambitious forms of “pooling and sharing.” Governments are wary of sharing military capabilities with their neighbors, and they are keen on protecting their domestic defense industries.

Poland is the only European country which has responded constructively to Washington’s relative withdrawal from Europe’s security arena. As part of the overhaul in the country’s approach to the EU instigated by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Warsaw has developed a new interest for EU defense cooperation. The Tusk government remains committed to NATO but, as Foreign Affairs Minister Radosław Sikorski has stated, Poland acknowledges that there will be times when the United States “might want to take a backseat,” and in those cases, “Europe should be able to act in its immediate vicinity.” Warsaw proposed a variety of ways to reinvigorate the EU’s defense and security policy during its 2011 EU Presidency, but these efforts were met with limited interest by its EU partners, including fellow Central Europeans.

Under current trends, Europeans risk finding themselves in a position where they cannot respond to a crisis within their Southern or Eastern neighborhood because they lack the military capabilities necessary to do so. They also risk straining European cohesion. The countries of Central Europe and the Baltics have never had much faith in the ability — or willingness — of their neighbors to guarantee their safety. As they watch Europe’s armed forces shrink in the backdrop of Washington’s shifting security priorities, they risk feeling increasingly vulnerable — even though several of them are allowing their own militaries to dwindle. A heightened sense of vulnerability could reduce the willingness of Central European states to contribute to international military operations far away. Indeed Central Europeans, already weary of expeditionary operations, might become tempted to keep their armed forces close to home to counter potential instability in their own neighborhood. Growing insecurity could also adversely affect the modernization of their militaries. Central European governments risk spending more money on equipment designed to tackle conventional threats, instead of the tools needed for NATO and EU expeditionary operations. Finally, heightened Central European insecurities could even strain relations with Russia, as Moscow could be tempted to exploit this sense of vulnerability to create tensions within NATO and the EU.

In order to avoid this scenario, Europeans need to stem the deterioration of their armed forces. Once the economic crisis is over, they should increase their defense budgets. In the meantime, however, they should commit to more joint military efforts within NATO, the EU and the variety of regional groupings across Europe, such as the Visegrád group, the Weimar Triangle and the Nordic defense cooperation framework. Governments must also strengthen their efforts to develop common security priorities, which is indispensable if they are to ever overcome their wariness to share military equipment with their neighbors. Given the diversity of threat perceptions across Europe — even among the countries of Central Europe — it will be hard for Europeans to develop a common strategic culture. But the overhaul in Poland’s foreign policy in recent years shows that countries can change. America’s withdrawal from the European security arena does not need to undermine transatlantic security.

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: The Center for European Policy Analysis

Poland’s U-turn on European Defense: A Missed Opportunity?

Clara M. O'Donnell — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:10:00 -0500

Introduction: In the last three years, Poland has completely overhauled its approach to transatlantic defense cooperation . For most of the last two decades, the large Central European country’s overarching security priority was to work with the United States and NATO. Warsaw was wary of European defense efforts which excluded Washington. In addition, Poland’s ties with the EU and several of its neighbors – in particular Germany – were marked by mistrust and, at times, open hostility. But since 2009, largely in response to the perceived decline of US attention to European security, Poland has become one of the most vocal advocates of common European Union defense efforts. In addition, it has striven to work increasingly closely with Germany and to be a leading player within the EU.

But Poland’s efforts to strengthen European military cooperation have been met by limited interest from its EU partners, most of which have a dwindling appetite for defense. These partners may be missing an important opportunity to improve Europe’s fledgling ability to tackle military crises abroad. They also risk making Poland feel so vulnerable that it could create new strains for the EU and the transatlantic alliance.

Downloads

Download Full Paper

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

The European Security Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean Region 2010-2011

Clara M. O'Donnell — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

INTRODUCTION

Over the last year, the shortcomings within the EU’s security policy towards its southern neighbourhood have dramatically come to the fore. For years, the EU has declared that the best way to ensure its security around the Mediterranean is through developing a “ring of friends” – “a zone of prosperity and a friendly neighbourhood” with whom the EU would enjoy “close, peaceful and co-operative relations” (European Commission Communication on Wider Europe, 2003). In order to achieve this goal, EU Member States have officially committed themselves to pursue a twofold strategy: to help stem the various conflicts which exist within the region and to promote good governance amongst their neighbours through the offer of closer bilateral ties. EU governments have invested significant efforts in attempting to achieve the first objective of supporting conflict resolution, and have been particularly active towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is considered a key EU foreign policy priority. But the difficulties of working as a single organisation composed of 27 countries have limited the EU’s ability to be taken seriously as a diplomatic heavy weight in the region. As a result, the impact of EU efforts has been limited and several of the conflicts across North Africa and the Middle East have continued to worsen.

While EU governments have been genuinely committed to conflict resolution, their interest in implementing their declared objective of strengthening good governance across their southern neighbourhood has been more limited. Over the years, the EU has often given only lip service to calls for democratic reforms and stronger respect for human rights amongst its Arab neighbours. Many European governments have preferred to cooperate with the various authoritarian regimes in place in order to guarantee short-term stability and secure the collaboration of southern countries in areas of interest to Europeans, including the control of illegal migration and counter-terrorism. But as popular protests toppled regimes across the Arab world during the early months of 2011, they threw into question many of the EU’s short-term security gains and highlighted the long-term unsustainability of its approach to the Mediterranean.

Read the full article at iemed.org (PDF) »

Authors

Clara M. O'Donnell

Publication: European Institute of the Mediterranean

Is Libya NATO’s Final Bow?

Clara M. O'Donnell and Justin Vaïsse — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:02:00 -0500

While U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron jostle for public acclaim for the recent military operation in Libya, significant unease can be found amongst officials from NATO allies. Indeed, although on certain levels, the multinational deployment performed very well in its UN sanctioned efforts to protect Libyan civilians against attacks by Muammar Gaddafi, the mission also raised some difficult questions for countries on both sides of the Atlantic, not least – once again – about the long term sustainability of the NATO alliance.

Contradicting the warnings from many experts and politicians in both Europe and the United States, the military intervention in Libya did not lead to a protracted stalemate. Seven months after the international coalition led by France, the U.K. and the United States deployed – initially as an ad-hoc coalition and subsequently under NATO command – the operation was called to an end in light of Gaddafi’s fall from power. In addition the nations contributing to the mission, which relied primarily on a naval embargo and air strikes, suffered no casualties and managed to keep the level of collateral damage remarkably low – largely due to the extensive and skilled use of precision guided munitions.

Europeans, which have long been criticized within the United States for not contributing sufficiently to international deployments, not least the NATO operation in Afghanistan, provided a large share of the military effort. This allowed the U.S. to scale back its own contribution after playing a leading role in neutralizing Libya’s air defenses during the first days of the campaign. Although Britain and France provided the most significant European military contributions, eleven other European countries participated in the arms embargo and the aerial campaign. And Denmark, Norway, and Belgium together hit as many targets during their strikes as France.

In addition, institutionally, NATO provided an invaluable ‘plug and play’ umbrella to co-ordinate the military campaign. According to most officials, only the United States and NATO have military command chains capable of controlling an operation of such complexity as the one in Libya. Once the alliance agreed to take full control of the mission on March 27th, it took only four days for it to implement its decision. Although not all NATO allies had initially supported the military deployment to Libya, none obstructed the command of the operation – in contrast to initial French fears. Even the use of shared NATO military assets was not too adversely affected. Although Germany, which abstained from endorsing the operation at the UN, refused to let its air crews participate in the deployment of NATO AWACS aircraft over Libyan airspace, it increased its contributions to AWACS operations in Afghanistan in order to free up crews from other NATO allies in Libya. NATO was able to bring non-alliance countries such as Sweden and the UAE into the military effort, and although their integration into the command chain was not seamless, it was greatly facilitated by years of joint training through a variety of NATO partnerships. In addition, operating under the NATO flag made it easier for Britain, France and the United States to convince their partners to remain committed to the military operation, not least over the summer when support for the mission started to wane.

But for many within NATO, the balance sheet of operation Unified Protector is far from fully positive. Some NATO officials raise questions about the implications of the mission for future operations aimed at protecting civilians. NATO strikes might have led to limited collateral damage. But during the course of the operation, according to a U.S. official, around 8,000 Libyans were killed as a result of fighting between Gaddafi’s forces and those opposing his rule. And the Libyan National Transitional Council estimates the death toll to be around 25,000. This has led some officials from NATO allies to argue that the level of casualties could have been lower if the U.S. had contributed more actively to the operation, because its unparalleled firepower could have enabled the mission to end sooner. Others have gone as far as suggesting that the death toll would have been lower if NATO had not intervened at all – although this would most probably mean that Gaddafi would still be in power. In addition, although NATO officially maintained the UN’s mandate of protecting civilians as its sole objective, de facto the unwillingness of the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi to negotiate led the success of the NATO operation to rely on Gaddafi’s demise, raising questions about the feasibility of ‘responsibility to protect’ without regime change. Finally, there is an uneasy recognition amongst officials that the nations which provided weapons and training to the rebel forces during the last months of the operation – at a minimum – ‘exploited the grey zones’ of the UN resolution which allowed for all necessary measures excluding a foreign occupation force. Such a wide interpretation of the UN mandate might have been necessary for the success of the mission. And many officials acknowledge that air power and the naval embargo alone would not have sufficed to shift the balance of forces, particularly once Gaddafi’s troops responded to NATO’s air campaign by blending into Libya’s civilian population. But the actions of several nations contributing to Unified Protector have significantly reduced the level of support from Russia, China and other international players for similar interventions in the future, with direct (although hard to measure) consequences on the willingness to pressure Syria.

In addition, although the North Atlantic Council eventually agreed to take control of the deployment to Libya, the major disagreements which marked the initial debates about the merit of military intervention – be it at the G8, the UN, NATO or the EU – were a strong reminder to transatlantic allies of the continued lack of a common strategic culture within the alliance. For some countries, in particular the U.K., the experience strengthened the growing conviction that it is futile to cooperate with certain European allies. For others, it reinforced the weariness of investing in shared military capabilities. And several countries – including Britain and France – were rattled by the United States’ unprecedented decision not to maintain a leading role within a NATO operation.

Most problematically, operation Unified Protector brought to the fore once more the significant shortcomings within European armed forces. Aerial intelligence assets, air to air refueling and fighter aircraft that can fly outside NATO airspace were all found to be in very short supply – notwithstanding the fact that several of these capabilities have been identified for years as key priorities for NATO allies. As Robert Gates, then U.S. Defense Secretary, remarked in June, although NATO should have been able to manage more than 300 air sorties a day, it was a struggle to launch 150, largely because of an acute shortage of targeting specialists. And some military officers within the NATO command chain – including senior ones – lacked the experience to perform their duties, forcing other allies to deploy additional military officials to assist them.

Yet so far, Libya has not incentivized European governments to limit their ongoing military spending cuts or to commit to the NATO and EU efforts aimed at limiting the impact of budget cuts through stronger cooperation amongst European armed forces. Governments continue to disagree about whether to develop the Allied Ground Surveillance program, designed to provide NATO with a commonly owned source of aerial intelligence – a program that has been in the pipeline for decades. Most officials predict that the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago will not lead to any significant breakthroughs on closer ‘pooling and sharing’ amongst European armed forces. And U.S. officials believe that on current trends, NATO will not be able to replicate a mission similar to the one conducted in Libya in a few years from now. Operation Unified Protect could well become a noble but final bow from the transatlantic alliance.