wing commander christopher luck mbe ma raf deputy director, strategy & war, department of...

Wing Commander Christopher Luck MBE MA RAF

Deputy Director, Strategy & War,Department of International Security & Military Studies,

USAF Air Command & Staff College,Maxwell AFB

WHY IS A MILITARY GUY HERE?

“War is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means…The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and means can never be considered in isolation from their purpose.”

• Carl Von Clausewitz, 1780-1831, from ‘On War’

Ends Means National Diplomacy Objectives Information

Military Economic

Another way of looking at it …

WaysWays

Grand Grand StrategyStrategy

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A DISCUSSION

DISCLAIMER

My Views, not those of my Service or Government

SCOPE• Background

• The Historical Drivers for the formation of the EU• The EU today

• A comparison of the EU and US• Same concerns and ambitions, different

perspectives

• The Implications for the US of:• A Disintegrating EU• An Further Integrating EU

• Conclusion and Thoughts to Ponder• Questions

The Historical Drivers for the EU

Violence

"A day will come when all the nations of this continent, without losing their distinct qualities or their glorious individuality, will fuse together in a higher unity and form the European brotherhood.

A day will come when there will be no other battlefields than those of the mind - open

marketplaces for ideas. A day will come when bullets and bombs will be replaced by votes".

Victor Hugo 1802-85

Another Quote…

"A day will come when all the nations of this continent, without losing their distinct qualities or their glorious individuality, will fuse together in a higher unity and form the European brotherhood.

A day will come when there will be no other battlefields than those of the mind - open

marketplaces for ideas. A day will come when bullets and bombs will be replaced by votes".

The Historical Drivers for the EU

• Peace, safety and security

• Economic and social solidarity

• Promote the European model of society– Democracy– Economic prosperity– Health– Education– Human Rights

“…a united states of Europe...”

The EU today

…and how does it work?

Paris – 1951

Rome – 1957

FranceGermanyItalyBelgiumNetherlandsLuxembourg

EuropeanCouncil 1974

United KingdomIrelandDenmark

Greece

SpainPortugal

Commoncurrency

€

Maastricht - 1992

(East Germany)

€ launched2002

SwedenFinlandAustria

EstoniaLatviaLithuaniaPolandCzech RepSlovakiaHungarySloveniaCyprusMalta

FranceGermanyItalyBelgiumNetherlandsLuxembourgUnited KingdomIrelandDenmarkGreeceSpainPortugalSwedenFinlandAustriaEstoniaLatviaLithuaniaPolandCzech RepSlovakiaHungarySloveniaCyprusMalta

FutureCroatiaRumaniaBulgaria

Turkey

KEY DATES & HISTORIC STEPS

Paris 1951 – coal/steel community

Rome 1957 – beginnings of EEC

Maastricht 1992 - integration

‘The Euro’

Constitution

Time

Lev

el o

f in

teg

rati

on

Churchill 1946

States delegate parts of nationalsovereignty to shared institutions

ESDP 1999 – security policy

COMMON POLICIESEconomy & Society:• Agriculture• Audiovisual• Biotechnology• Civil Society• Competition• Consumers• Culture• Customs Union• Economic $ monetary• Education• Employment• Energy• Enterprise• Environment• Fisheries• Food Safety• Information society• Internal market• Justice• Public health• Regional policy

• R & D• Space• Sport• Taxation• Trans-European network• Transport• Youth

International Affairs:• The EU in the World

Institutional Affairs:• Governance• The Future of Europe-debate

Finance:• Budget• Fight against Fraud• Grants• Public Procurement

KEY EU TREATIES• 1951 (Paris)

Treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)• 1957 (Rome)

Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)

• 1965 A treaty is signed merging the executive bodies of the three Communities and creating a single Council and Commission

• 1970 (Luxembourg) The treaty is allowing the European Communities to be increasingly financed from "own resources" and giving greater powers to the European Parliament

• 1975 (Luxembourg) The treaty is giving the European Parliament greater power over the budget and setting up the European Court of Auditors. It comes into force on 1 June 1977

• 1986 (2/17 Luxembourg and 2/28 Hague ) The Single European Act. This paves the way for creating the single market by 1993

• 1990 (Schengen Agreement)The Schengen Agreement abolishes checks at the borders between member states of the European Communities

• 1992 (Maastricht)The Treaty on European Union

• 1997 (Amsterdam)The treaty is giving the European Union new powers and responsibilities

• 2001 (Nice)The Treaty changes the EU's decision-making system so that the Union will be ready for enlargement. It comes into force on 1 February 2003

EU-US Data

EU US

Area, 1,000 Square Miles 1,537 3,718

Population (Millions) 455 291

Population Density/Square Mile 296 75

Unemployment Rate % 9.1 5.6

Gross Domestic Product (Billions $) 12767 10881

Inflation (GDP Price Deflator %) 1.9 2.3

Defense expenditure (Billions $) 174 383

Development aid (Billions $) 36 12

Total active duty personnel (Millions) 1.6 1.4

FY2003

“If I want to talk to Europe, who do I phone?“

Henry Kissinger 1970s

Council of Ministers

EU Council

Constitution Ratified2 ½ year President

Judiciary

Executive

Legislative

Commission

ParliamentCourt of Justice

Pre-ConstitutionJavier Solana

Commission

Council of Ministers

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

• Peace & stability based

• European regeneration

• Organization of sovereign states– Confederation– Increasing integration

• “How deep a Union?”

• Constitution

EU - USASame, but different

NATIONAL STRATEGIES

• “A Secure Europe in a better world” – European Security Strategy (December 2003)– Also known as “Solana

Paper”

• “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 2002)

EU VS US STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

• Addressing Threats

• Building Security in Neighborhood

• International Order based on effective Multilateralism (UN)

• Robust Economy

• More unified Voice

• Prevent our Enemies from Threatening Us…

• Work with others to Defuse Regional Conflicts

• Develop Agendas for Cooperative Action with Other Main Centers of Global Power

• Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth

• …Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy

KEY THREATS

• Threats– Terrorism– Proliferation of WMD– Regional Conflicts– State Failure – Organized Crime

Perception & Approach

different than

in USA

ARE THE USA AND THE EU DRIFTING APART?

• Perception Gap

• Strategy Gap

• Capabilities Gap

• Attitude Gap

• Value Gap

• Religious Gap

Source: vanHerpen, Six Dimensions of Growing Transatlantic Divide

PERCEPTION GAP

• EU does not consider itself at war– “Europe has never

been so prosperous, so secure nor so free”

• Europe old Vulnerability– Terrorism already in

70s

• USA considers itself at war

• New US Vulnerability


STRATEGY GAP

• New Imperialism or Noble Idealism?

• European doubts:– Legitimacy (UN/Customary Law/Just War?)– Feasibility (better end state?)– Consistency (longer than one administration?)– Risks (escalation?)– Motives (national interest?)


CAPABILITIES GAP

• Rapid increase of US Military Power in 90s

• Sole military Superpower

• EU has very limited ability for military power projection


ATTITUDE GAP

• EU Multilateralism– Largest share of

Peacekeepers and international policemen

• EU Soft Power– Europe prefers the use

of economy as main instrument of power

• US Unilateralism– Coalition of willing

• US Hard Power– Military superiority

causes the US to seek primarily military solutions

Source: vanHerpen, Six Dimensions of Growing Transatlantic Divide& Judt, Tony, “Europe vs America” The NY Review of Books (2005)

VALUE GAP

• EU believes in democratic legitimacy from the will of an international community

• US believes in special legitimacy of their own democracy

• US believes that their values are significant for mankind and are therefore universal


RELIGIOUS GAP

• Europeans see Americans as ‘fundamental’ Christians where as they see themselves as secular Christians– “Evil Empire” (USSR)– “Axis of evil” (North Korea, Iran, Iraq)– Schiavo Case/Gay Marriages/Stem Cell

Research/Faith-Based Initiative


UNILATERALISM VS MULTILATERALISM

Donald, what’s up with Europe? They are talking about a Union!

I don’t know George. Which Europe are you talking about, the old Europe or the new Europe?

EU’s FUTURE AND THE IMPACT ON THE USA

An EU drifting apartor

An EU more unified

DISINTEGRATING EU

• Constitution fails and the EU will gradually disintegrate.

• Consequences– Diplomatic– Informational– Military– Economic

DIPLOMATIC CONSEQUENCES

Multiple actors vs One EU

INFORMATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

• No strong actor with long experience in

world affairs.

European influence 1938

INFORMATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

• Loss of soft power around the globe• Slows spreading of common values

MILITARY CONSEQUENCES

• Weaker NATO alliance– Incapacity to support US in global ops– Technology gap

• Lack of will to commit national forces to global operations

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

• Stops the spread of prosperity

• Lack of prosperity leads to instability

• Complex system of multiple markets

• Decreased investment opportunities

• Mutual investments in jeopardy

• Lack of competition for the US

INTERDEPENDENT WORLDHistorical GDP growth per capita

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998

$ / c

ap

ita Western Europe

Australia

United States

China

Japan

EU DISINTEGRATES SUMMARY

• EU disintegration is NOT in the US interest, because :– D: Dr. Rice has no one to call– I : Loss of stabilizing global soft power– M: Even weaker alliances– E: Negative impact on global economy

INTEGRATING EU: THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE

Scope:

• Unification through the EU Constitution.

• EU expansion will enhance the level of integration

• CFSP and ESDP will enhance Security Politics

• The Confederate States of Europe – Analysis according to the “DIME”.

• EU Security and Defense Policy Perspectives and US interests

• Foundation of unified ideas, values, interests, and action.

• Strengthened and guaranteed core values of peace, prosperity, democracy.

• Unification process promotes progression with new and future members.

• Less bureaucratic due to common agreements.

• EU expansion will enhance the level of integration

EEC Signing Ceremony, Rome 1957

EU Meet, Rome October 2004source: http://www.epp-ed.org/Press/photogallery/

UNIFICATION THROUGH THE EU CONSTITUTION

• Common Security Strategy unifies ideas and security policy.• Will promote active and passive security among its member states.• Will provide for hard and soft military powers and forces.• Will form, build, and transform to stay up to date.• Stronger Europe – Stronger Atlantic Alliance.

CFSP AND ESDPENHANCE SECURITY POLITICS

source: http://www.epp-ed.org/Press/photogallery/

“…if you want to have a trans-Atlantic dialogue between grown-ups, I know that any president and any American administration is willing to listen to the European voice as long as it is one European voice.”

Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – THE DIME

• Constitution facilitates diplomatic relations.• Unification through a foundational and constitutional basis.• Strategies Intra- and Inter-States commonly agreed and laid

down.• Harmonizes and synchronizes with UN Charter and therefore

international law.• EU model of building democracy – through assistance,

admonition and negotiations.

source: http://www.epp-ed.org/Press/photogallery/

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – DIPLOMATIC

• Strong soft power around the globe.

• Cultural experience in world affairs.

• Common future IO standards.

Galileo GPS

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – INFORMATION

• ESDP will shape, equip, and train coalition forces over the full spectrum of operational needs.

AIRBUS 400 M

NH 90 EUROCOPTER

EUROFIGHTER

TIGER

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – MILITARY

• Employs and if necessary leads coalition operations abroad

Operation ARTEMIS

source: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/Operation CONCORDIA

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – MILITARY

George C. Marshall

Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle

• Prosperity and Stability through common shared open markets.

• Multiple Markets enhance global competition and stability.

• Competition towards US necessary.

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – ECONOMIC

• CFSP / ESDP – and NATO- US criticism to EU specific structures- US fears EU military structures as a rival to NATO- EU continues relying on NATO alliance and burden

sharing

EU SECURITY AND DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES AND US INTERESTS

• CFSP / ESDP and US Interests- EU sees partnership in NATO- EU also needs independent forces (Homeland Security)

• EU Security Strategy revolves around multilateralism• US skepticism about the EU as a peer rival is non

substantial

EU SECURITY AND DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES AND US INTERESTS

The Result: - Equality, prosperity, peace, and democracy!- More unification- More direction- More quality vs. quantity- More conformity according to the principles of the UN- More promotion of international cooperation- Change is difficult!

source: Bassford,Jomini and Clausewitz:Their Interaction, Georgia State University, 1993

THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF EUROPE – CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

• Peace and security wanted - economic cooperation was the first step. It has kept the peace.

CONCLUSION


• Churchill’s premise of “jaw, jaw not war, war”

CONCLUSION


• Churchill’s premise of “jaw, jaw not war, war”• What US worries about, EU worries about• “Same, but different” - Cultural divide

CONCLUSION


• Churchill’s premise of “jaw, jaw not war, war”• What US worries about, EU worries about• “Same, but different” - Cultural divide• Not a question of “if the EU is going to integrate

further” – only “how much?” • What do the US want:

– Peer competitor?– Partner?

President Bush 8 Feb 05 “…want to be a partnerand not a rival [to the EU]”

“It is time to turn away from the disagreements of the past. It is time to opena new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance.”

Sec State Rice 9 Feb 05

One wag said it ought to be an interesting trip after all that has been said.

“When I first mentioned I might be traveling in France and Germany it raised some eyebrows.

'Oh, that was the old Rumsfeld’ ”

Frames of Reference

Thucydides: Fear, Interests, Honor

Waltz: Man, Internal Organization of States, Anarchic International System

Ikenberry: Balance of Power, Hegemony, Constitutionalism

Peace as the lowest level of ‘war’ (DIME)

THOUGHTS TO PONDER

1. Ratification of Constitution2. Wolfowitz at the World

Bank/John Bolton UN Ambassador

3. EU selling arms to China4. Iran & North Korea5. Turkey6. Ageing Europe7. Google War – France8. Just War – Prevention9. Demise of the State system?10. Peer Competitors

QUESTIONS?

wing commander christopher luck mbe ma raf deputy director, strategy & war, department of...

Documents

eu slide

war slide

greece slide

discussion slide

violence slide

government slide

quote slide

security policy slide