Ensuring Euro-Atlantic Security
Photo:
Flickr / Gael Davaux CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The chasm between Russia and the West appears to be wider now than at any point since the Cold War. But, despite stark differences, there are areas of existential common interest. As we did during the darkest days of the Cold War, Americans, Europeans, and Russians must work together to avoid catastrophe, including by preventing terrorist attacks and reducing the risks of a military — or even nuclear — conflict in Europe.
Ever since the historic events of 1989-1991 changed Europe forever, each of us has been involved in Euro-Atlantic security, both inside and outside of government. Through it all, efforts to build mutual security in the Euro-Atlantic region have lacked urgency and creativity. As a result, the Euro-Atlantic space has remained vulnerable to political, security, and economic crises.
In the absence of new initiatives by all parties, things are likely to get worse. Terrorist attacks have struck Moscow, Beslan, Ankara, Istanbul, Paris, Nice, Munich, Brussels, London, Boston, New York, Washington, and other cities — and those responsible for carrying them out are determined to strike again. Thousands of people have been killed in Ukraine since 2013, and more are dying in renewed fighting today. Innocent refugees are fleeing the devastating wars in the Middle East and North Africa. And Western-Russian relations are dangerously tense, increasing the risk that an accident, mistake, or miscalculation will precipitate a military escalation — or even a new war.
The first step in acting to advance our common interests is to identify and pursue concrete, practical, near-term initiatives designed to reduce risks, rebuild trust, and improve the Euro-Atlantic security landscape. There are five key areas that such initiatives should cover.
— We must reduce the danger of a nuclear weapon being used. Today, the risk of an accidental or mistaken nuclear ballistic-missile launch is unnecessarily high. A starting point for minimizing the threat could be a new declaration by the Russian and US presidents reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. This would mirror the joint statement made by former US President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which was well received in both countries, and marked a new effort to improve relations.
— We must reduce the risks associated with keeping nuclear forces on “prompt-launch” status, whereby they are ready for immediate launch and can hit their targets within minutes. The United States and Russia should commit to begin discussions on removing a significant percentage of strategic nuclear forces from prompt-launch status at a later date. This, together with the declaration proposed above, would set a strategic direction for reducing the nuclear threat.
— We must reduce the threat of nuclear and radiological materials falling into the wrong hands. As the Islamic State looks for new ways to export terror to Europe, North America, and beyond, it may try to acquire and detonate a radiological-dispersal device, commonly known as a “dirty bomb.” It is especially urgent that the US, Russia, and Europe lead a global effort to secure the most vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world. In particular, there is an urgent need to cooperate on securing radiological sources. Many facilities using these materials today are vulnerable, but the estimated date for securing them globally is 2044.
— We must reduce the risks of a military confrontation by improving military-to-military communication through a new NATO–Russia Military Crisis Management Group. This initiative should accompany efforts to restart bilateral military-to-military dialogue between the US and Russia. The focus should be on increasing transparency and trust on all sides.
— We must reduce the risk of a mid-air incident leading to a political or military conflict. Increased military activity in areas where NATO and Russia both operate now poses an unacceptably high risk to civilian air traffic. Countries that are active in the Baltic Sea region, for starters, should exchange “due regard” regulations — the national operating procedures that state aircraft must follow when in the proximity of civilians. Technical support for greater air transparency would also significantly reduce the risk of a mid-air collision.
Europe, the US, and Russia are confronting a range of significant issues today. But none should distract attention from the important goal of identifying a new policy framework, based on existential common interests, that can stop the downward spiral in relations and stabilize Euro-Atlantic security. The practical near-term steps that we have identified here are the right place to begin. We need to start now.
First published inProject Syndicate
Ensuring Euro-Atlantic Security
MUNICH – The chasm between Russia and the West appears to be wider now than at any point since the Cold War. But, despite stark differences, there are areas of existential common interest. As we did during the darkest days of the Cold War, Americans, Europeans, and Russians must work together to avoid catastrophe, including by preventing terrorist attacks and reducing the risks of a military – or even nuclear – conflict in Europe.Ever since the historic events of 1989-1991 changed Europe forever, each of us has been involved in Euro-Atlantic security, both inside and outside of government. Through it all, efforts to build mutual security in the Euro-Atlantic region have lacked urgency and creativity. As a result, the Euro-Atlantic space has remained vulnerable to political, security, and economic crises.
In the absence of new initiatives by all parties, things are likely to get worse. Terrorist attacks have struck Moscow, Beslan, Ankara, Istanbul, Paris, Nice, Munich, Brussels, London, Boston, New York, Washington, and other cities – and those responsible for carrying them out are determined to strike again. Thousands of people have been killed in Ukraine since 2013, and more are dying in renewed fighting today. Innocent refugees are fleeing the devastating wars in the Middle East and North Africa. And Western-Russian relations are dangerously tense, increasing the risk that an accident, mistake, or miscalculation will precipitate a military escalation – or even a new war.
The first step in acting to advance our common interests is to identify and pursue concrete, practical, near-term initiatives designed to reduce risks, rebuild trust, and improve the Euro-Atlantic security landscape. There are five key areas that such initiatives should cover.
·We must reduce the danger of a nuclear weapon being used. Today, the risk of an accidental or mistaken nuclear ballistic-missile launch is unnecessarily high. A starting point for minimizing the threat could be a new declaration by the Russian and US presidents reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. This would mirror the joint statement made by former US President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, which was well received in both countries, and marked a new effort to improve relations.
·We must reduce the risks associated with keeping nuclear forces on “prompt-launch” status, whereby they are ready for immediate launch and can hit their targets within minutes. The United States and Russia should commit to begin discussions on removing a significant percentage of strategic nuclear forces from prompt-launch status at a later date. This, together with the declaration proposed above, would set a strategic direction for reducing the nuclear threat.
·We must reduce the threat of nuclear and radiological materials falling into the wrong hands. As the Islamic State looks for new ways to export terror to Europe, North America, and beyond, it may try to acquire and detonate a radiological-dispersal device, commonly known as a “dirty bomb.” It is especially urgent that the US, Russia, and Europe lead a global effort to secure the most vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world. In particular, there is an urgent need to cooperate on securing radiological sources. Many facilities using these materials today are vulnerable, but the estimated date for securing them globally is 2044.
·We must reduce the risks of a military confrontation by improving military-to-military communication through a new NATO-Russia Military Crisis Management Group. This initiative should accompany efforts to restart bilateral military-to-military dialogue between the US and Russia. The focus should be on increasing transparency and trust on all sides.
LEARN MORE
·We must reduce the risk of a mid-air incident leading to a political or military conflict. Increased military activity in areas where NATO and Russia both operate now poses an unacceptably high risk to civilian air traffic. Countries that are active in the Baltic Sea region, for starters, should exchange “due regard” regulations – the national operating procedures that state aircraft must follow when in the proximity of civilians. Technical support for greater air transparency would also significantly reduce the risk of a mid-air collision.
Europe, the US, and Russia are confronting a range of significant issues today. But none should distract attention from the important goal of identifying a new policy framework, based on existential common interests, that can stop the downward spiral in relations and stabilize Euro-Atlantic security. The practical near-term steps that we have identified here are the right place to begin. We need to start now.
How Europe Should Deal With Trump
MUNICH – Donald Trump’s presidency poses a stress test for Europe, for transatlantic relations, and for the world as a whole. Indeed, in many ways, Trump’s “America first” policy is defined by its opposition to the internationalist US foreign policy of the past eight decades.For starters, Trump says that he trusts German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin equally. Does that imply that the United States will pursue a policy of equidistance between the EU and the Kremlin?
It is not an idle question. Trump has made it obvious that established partnerships, alliances, rules, and protocolsmean little to him. In his tweets, he rants about the media, attacks independent judges, targets individuals and companies, and belittles international organizations.
But even if the US under Trump is an unattractive ally for Europe, writing off the US as a European partner – which some in Europe would like to do sooner rather than later – would be a mistake.
For one thing, Europe must not ignore the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for Trump. The commitment of America’s civil society and the response of its judiciary show Europeans that the US they know and hold in high regard is no pushover. Instead of turning away from the US, we should cooperate with Americans who remain committed to preserving the transatlantic community of values. This includes members of the new administration who have voiced their clear support for the transatlantic partnership and continuity, to say nothing of Trump’s opponents – Democrats and Republicans alike – in Congress.
Moreover, those who favor cutting ties seem to believe that there are partners all over the world just lining up to defend the liberal global order together with Europe. The EU might agree with China that a new era of protectionism would be harmful. But beyond that, they have little common ground. In the long term, the liberal global order will endure only if supported by both pillars of the transatlantic partnership.
Finally, calls for Europe to become a strategic counterweight to the US are purely aspirational; in reality, no such option exists. In the short and medium term, Europeans cannot do without the US security guarantee. As a result, we must work to convince the new administration of the importance of a united and peaceful Europe.
Nonetheless, the mere speculation about decoupling European security from the US is giving rise to uncertainty, reflected in the emerging debate about a European – or even German – nuclear bomb. It’s a sham debate, because it assumes what must be questioned: Is it really in Europeans’ interest to cut the cord proactively now, before we have even been presented with any concrete US decisions that directly affect us?
Europe’s only good option is to engage with the US administration as closely as possible – which doesn’t mean playing down deeply worrying statements made by Trump. When Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and a number of US senators and House members visit the Munich Security Conference this weekend, European delegates must make their expectations vis-à-vis the US administration very clear to them. Engaging and influencing is the kind ofrealpolitikthat is necessary now, even if many Europeans may not like the idea.
This means communicating, with utmost clarity, that the breach of vital European interests would bring about a major transatlantic crisis. The worst-case scenario for Europe is a US administration that pursues policies – for example, active support for right-wing populists – aimed at bringing about the disintegration of the EU. It is equally important to ensure that any deal between Russia and the US does not come at Europe’s expense. As for the nuclear agreement with Iran, the Trump administration must be made aware that Europe will not go along with any new sanctions if the US withdraws from the deal unilaterally.
Europe can and should assert itself economically as well. If Trump really wants to introduce a kind of origin-based tax to promote US-made goods, the EU could threaten to do the same. Whether the issue is import taxes or the future of Western sanctions against Russia, it is helpful to remember the simple fact that Europe remains America’s most important market. America’s trade volume with the EU is roughly 37 times higher than that with Russia, with huge mutual direct investments locking in the transatlantic partners’ interdependence.
Even if Trump rejects such considerations, he should think twice about how far he wants to push Europe. At a certain point, anti-Trump election campaigns in Europe would probably be very successful; he will hardly be able to accomplish his plans without strong and close partners in Europe – and certainly not if he acts against Europe.
But, clearly, Europe must now focus on itself. We do need to do more to bolster our own security. While significant change is on the way, including increased integration of Europe’s armed forces, the road toward a well-functioning European defense union is long. And, in light of the precarious global situation, Germany, in particular, must increaseits efforts in foreign and defense policyand development aid.
LEARN MORE
The EU’s cohesion and its internal and external security cannot be achieved at zero cost. Avoiding budget deficits, as Germany is now seeking to do, will be of no benefit to future generations if the price is the erosion of the main foundation of our prosperity: a peaceful and prosperous Europe.
Instead of waiting in fear of Trump’s next tweet, we Europeans should lay the foundations for a Europe that is strong, capable of taking action, and committed to Western values. From this position, we can assert our key interests vis-à-vis the US with confidence. That is the best response Europe can give.
Germany in the Age of Trump
BERLIN – Donald Trump is now the 45th President of the United States, and in hisinaugural addresshe made it clear to the assembled US establishment that his administration does not intend to pursue business as usual. His motto, “America first,” signals the renunciation, and possible destruction, of the US-led world order that Democratic and Republican presidents, starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt, have built up and maintained – albeit with varying degrees of success – for more than seven decades.If America abandons its role as the leading economic and military power and moves toward nationalism and isolationism, it will precipitate an international reordering, while also changing the country itself. Rather than being a hegemon, the US will become one great power among many.
Since the end of World War II, the US has been the engine of global free trade, so a move toward protectionism, or an attempt to either reverse globalization or harness it for narrow national interests, would have immense economic and political consequences worldwide. The full implications of such a shift are largely unpredictable; but we all know – or should know – what happened the last time the world’s leading powers turned inward, in the 1930s.
The alliances, multilateral institutions, security guarantees, international agreements, and shared values underlying the current global order might soon be called into question, or rejected altogether. If that happens, the oldPax Americanawill have been needlessly destroyed by America itself. And with no obvious alternative framework to replace it, all indicators point toturbulence and chaos in the near future.
America’s two former enemies, Germany and Japan, will be among the biggest losers if the US abdicates its global role under Trump. Both countries experienced total defeat in 1945, and ever since they have rejected all forms of theMachtstaat,or “power state.” With their security guaranteed by the US, they transformed themselves into trading countries, and have remained active participants in the US-led international system.
If Trump takes away the US security umbrella, these two major economic powers will have a serious security problem on their hands. While Japan’s peripheral geopolitical position might, theoretically, allow it to re-nationalize its defense capacities, pursuing that option could significantly increase the likelihood of a military confrontation in East Asia. This is an alarming prospect, given that multiple countries in the region have nuclear weapons.
Germany, meanwhile, lies in the heart of Europe, and is surrounded by its previous wartime enemies. It is the continent’s largest country in economic and demographic terms, but it owes much of its strength to the American security guarantee and multilateral, transatlantic, and European institutional frameworks based on shared values and free trade. The existing international order has rendered theMachtstaatand its accompanying sphere of influence unnecessary.
Unlike Japan, Germany cannot re-nationalize its security policy even in theory, because such a step would undermine the principle of collective defense in Europe and tear apart the continent. Lest we forget, the post-war global and regional order’s purpose was to integrate the former enemy powers so that they posed no danger to one another.
Owing to its geopolitical weight, Germany’s perspective is now synonymous with that of the European Union. And the EU’s outlook is not that of a hegemon; rather, it is concerned with the rule of law, integration, and peaceful reconciliation of member states’ interests. Germany’s location alone makes nationalism a bad idea; and besides, its most fundamental political and economic interests depend on a strong, successful EU – especially in the age of Trump.
Germany is in the same boat as all other Europeans with respect to security. Just as there can be no French security without Germany, there can be no German security without Poland. That is why Germany and all other European countries must now do all they can to boost their contributions to collective security within the EU and NATO.
Germany’s strength is based on its financial and economic might, and it will now have to leverage that strength on the EU’s and NATO’s behalf. Unfortunately, it can no longer count on the so-called “peace dividend” that it enjoyed in the past (and even during the euro crisis). Thrift is undoubtedly a virtue; but other considerations should take priority when one’s house is on fire and about to collapse.
Apart from security, Germany’s second fundamental interest is global free trade. Intra-European trade will remain supremely important, because that is how Germany makes a living; but trade with the US will be vital, too. It will not bode well for Germany if China and the US – its two most important non-EU export markets – enter into a trade war. Protectionism anywhere can have global repercussions.
LEARN MORE
And yet, along with all the dangers Trump’s presidency poses for Europeans, it offers opportunities as well. Trump’s protectionist rhetoric alone has already led to arapprochement between China and Europe. More important, the new US administration has furnished Europeans with a chance finally to close ranks, grow up, and reinforce their geopolitical power and position.
But if Europeans finally do come together, they should avoid anti-Americanism. Trump is America’s president, but he is not America. North Atlantic countries will still have a common history and shared values – even under Trump, and even though much else will change in the coming years.
Sanctions