NATO and the Atlantic Community

Transatlantic Seminar, 12 February 2003, Munich

NATO and the Atlantic Community after the Prague Summit and the Munich Security Conference: Time for a new Transatlantic Bargain? Transatlantic Seminar with Dr. Stanley Sloan, Director of the Atlantic Community Initiative and President of VIC-Vermont, and Professor Detlef Puhl, Deputy Dean at the College of International and Security Studies, George C. Marshall Center, Garmisch-Partenkirchen. Moderator: Wolfgang Bücherl, C·A·P.

13.02.2003 · Improving Responsiveness

Dr. Stanley Sloan and Professor Detlef Puhl.
Foto: C·A·P

Speaking before an audience of around 25 scholars, policy-makers, journalists and businessmen at the Center for Applied Policy Research, Professor Sloan noted that transatlantic relations are presently in a "very dangerous moment ," and that "lots of mistakes" have been made on both sides, which has resulted in both sides thinking of and speaking to another "in caricatures". He reminded the audience that the U.S. and Europe have been heading in the direction of conflict for a while. This is mainly due to the American tendency to unilateralism and the European tendency to what Sloan called "empty autonomy."

While affirming that there are a number of structural factors underlying the current American behavior towards Europe, Sloan defended the view that the special circumstances and the personalities of many members of the Bush administration have a great influence. Beyond this, the U.S. and Europe "still have more in common with each other than they have with any other country or group of countries in the world."

In order to improve the strained relationship, Sloan recommended that both sides take steps toward one another. For the U.S., this would mean being more careful with its actions, "to be a hegemon without acting like one ." Europe, on the other hand, would need to develop the necessary mentality and capacities to "put some hard power behind its words," while changing its attitude of "empty autonomy."

In addition, he pointed out the need to start thinking about long-term means of repairing the serious damage done to NATO, the EU and the entire transatlantic community, during the current Iraq crisis. To that end, Professor Sloan reaffirmed his idea of elaborating a new "Transatlantic Community Treaty ," which could serve to reaffirm the sense of common destiny and shared values. This would aid in once again putting the focus back on the positive side of transatlantic relations and in developping and improving soft power cooperation in a number of sectors, including the environment, economic issues, etc.

Professor Puhl affirmed that the Iraq crisis represents a watershed in transatlantic relations for which no one was prepared. It has further lead to a non-understanding and hard feelings on both sides. Differences have always existed in the past, but they were covered up by a common strategic interest that seems to be lacking at the moment. While the U.S. and Europe continue to share common values, they currently do not have a common agenda.
In Puhl's view, the primary task for the future is to find a "new bargain" and, most importantly, to decide what the actors want the EU and NATO to be. According to Puhl, the best option would be a strong and united Europe allied to North America, with NATO as a forum for security policy cooperation. The problem, however, lies in the fact that Europe seems anything but united at the moment.
Puhl had a number of recommendations in order to improve the transatlantic relationship: 1) to recognize the importance of lasting alliances, as opposed to ad-hoc "coalitions of the willing"; 2) to have respect and listen instead of clinging to stereotypes; and 3) to learn about cultural differences, to accept them and be aware of them in negotiations. He therefore sees an urgent need for a new thinking, and not for new treaties. In conclusion, Puhl said leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to be aware that the relations are a two-way-street.

In the ensuing discussion, much emphasis was put on the Iraq crisis. It was noted that this crisis shows how important foreign policy coordination is for the European countries, in order to remain influential. In this context, the crisis was deemed to have all the ingredients of a "catastrophe." Professor Puhl stated that Europe is in the middle of dramatic change that it was not prepared for, that there is "no long-term strategy visible."
It was added that in order to change the tone and substance in transatlantic relations, European governments will have to find an answer to the "American question": "How relevant is the U.S. for European foreign policy?" With reference to the current crisis, one possible answer may be that the U.S. is and will remain a constituent factor in European foreign policy - for the good or for the bad. A reinforced European identity would thus require an awareness of this implicit influence.

As for the American side, Professor Sloan expressed his hope for a learning curve within the Bush administration; as of now, only Colin Powell seems to be concerned about the perception of U.S. foreign policy abroad.

Burden sharing was another aspect discussed at large. Many participants stressed the importance of the European contribution in fields of soft power, such as development aid.

Regarding the future relevance of NATO, it was noted that the coming enlargement will almost certainly "re-Americanize" the alliance and, might, consequently, lead the U.S. to strengthen its efforts in keeping NATO relevant. Whether NATO retains its current form or will serve primarily as a forum for security cooperation, remains to be seen.