NATO and the EU: Vilnius Summit Implications
Americans often look to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the single defense mechanism in Europe, and for good reason. Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall and over a decade of closer economic ties to Russia, the U.S. clearly remains the main guarantor of peace and stability on the continent; so much so that European nations have for many years neglected to invest in their own defense.[1] In 2022 for example, only a few nations in the alliance have exceeded the minimum spending on defense of 2% GDP: The US, the United Kingdom, Greece (who historically spends over 70% of their budget on personnel alone)[2] and Poland generally field the most capable forces.
However, the relationship between NATO and the European Union (EU) is more nuanced and provides some more context for the discussion on military capabilities. This paper outlines recent events and changes affecting the two organizations.
Executive Summary
- The two organizations were created at the same time but for separate reasons.
- Over time each has changed and matured to reflect the environment and threats
- With the addition of Sweden and Finland, NATO includes even more EU nations.
- In the future, NATO must exert stronger influence over military acquisition programs to ensure linkages between nations present a strong defensive posture.
EU and NATO
There are in fact many similarities between the two organizations. Both were founded after WW II to deter conflict and aggression, although through differing methodologies.
- The EU: Common principles and values underpin life in the EU: freedom, democracy, equality, and the rule of law, promoting peace and stability. The goal is to integrate European economies to an extent that prevents future conflicts within Europe.
- At first, NATO was not a military organization, but an alliance created to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration. Although the treaty was signed in April of 1949, NATO did not have a military command structure until late in 1950 after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949 and the Korean War began in 1950. Seeing how the world was changing, NATO set up the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), headed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower as its first commander.
Both organizations are highly bureaucratic and complex. The many governing institutions, councils, commissions, and structural control mechanisms make discussions and any progress a lengthy process, but not impossible. Both have seen increases in membership in the 21st Century and new approaches to coordination (such as NATO’s Partnership for Peace initiative) within each organization.
Although separate, these two organizations see each other as partners with many common goals. After the most recent Vilnius Summit, NATO issued their traditional communique with an expanded discussion of partnerships and the European Union’s role with NATO:
“The European Union remains a unique and essential partner for NATO. Our strategic partnership is essential for the security and prosperity of our nations and of the Euro-Atlantic area. It is built on our shared values, our determination to tackle common challenges and our unequivocal commitment to promote and safeguard peace, freedom and prosperity. NATO recognises the value of a stronger and more capable European defence that contributes positively to transatlantic and global security … complementary to, and interoperable with NATO. The development of coherent, complementary and interoperable defence capabilities, avoiding unnecessary duplication, is key in our joint efforts to make the Euro-Atlantic area safer. … We reaffirm … all the decisions, principles, and commitments with regard to NATO and EU cooperation. We will continue to further strengthen this partnership in a spirit of full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity, and respect for the organisations’ different mandates, decision-making autonomy and institutional integrity, and as agreed by the two organisations. … Political dialogue between NATO and the EU remains essential to advance NATO-EU cooperation.”[3] (emphasis added)
Participation
EU
The EU has continually developed through the modern era as many key events shaped the union. After the European Free Trade Association was created in 1960, the USSR built the Berlin Wall in August 1961. The union has expanded to 27 nations with many central and eastern European countries joining in the early 2000’s.
As Yugoslavia was breaking up in 1991, the Maastricht Treaty was being negotiated and finally signed in 1992, establishing the European Union and laying the path for the Euro and closer cooperation in foreign and security policy. The 70’s and 80’s saw new EU members while issues such as environmental protection and the oil crisis came to the fore. In the 70’s new democracies in Portugal, Greece and Spain, cleared the path for these nations. In 1979, citizens directly elected members to the European Parliament for the first time. New members continued to join in 1995, followed by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the launch of the Euro for commercial and financial transactions in 1999.[4]
NATO
Twelve countries signed the original treaty: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. In response to West Germany becoming a NATO member, The Soviet Union and it’s client states formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955. For the next 40 years NATO changed with new members coming into the alliance and one, France, departing from the integrated military command structure but remaining part of the alliance.
The Allies created the Partnership for Peace program, or PfP, in 1994. The PfP allows non-NATO countries, or “Partners”, to share information with NATO Allies and modernize their militaries in line with democratic standards. Partners are encouraged to choose their own level of involvement with the Alliance. The path to full membership is open to those who decided to pursue it. As a result, Czechia, Hungary and Poland became full Alliance members in 1999. Since then, the alliance has continued to expand its membership.[5]
NATO now has 31 nations and if their parliament approves, Sweden will bring the total to 32.
Current Situation
Turkey has tried to enter the EU since 1987. Talks between the Union and Turkey have started and stalled a few times. The most recent reason for their inability to come to agreement was the bloody 2016 coup attempt to oust President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as Turkey’s leader. In that failed attempt almost 300 were killed and as many as 6000 were detained by the government, including 200 top Turkish court officials, including members of the Supreme Court, taken into custody despite any evidence of involvement in the coup.[6]
The lack of consistent democratic institutions is often the rational for exclusion. A history of coup attempts (as many as 10 over the years) and the military’s penchant for threatening governments concern the EU. Erdogan seems to have cleaned out the military leadership responsible for 2016, but actions such as declaring followers of his rival Fethullah Gulen terrorists work against the perception of Turkey as a mature democratic state.[7]
Other issues Turkey must overcome include their military occupation of Cyprus, some rule of law and human rights issues and the fact that many consider Turkey a part of Asia and not part of Europe despite the linkage between the continents through Istanbul.[8]
Despite these obstacles, President Erdogan had linked the admission of Sweden to NATO with progress on Turkey’s decades-long petition for EU membership. Because admission to NATO requires unanimous approval, Turkey could have effectively held the inclusion of Sweden hostage until their EU demands were met. However, behind the scenes negotiations in recent weeks, including the deployment of hypersonic missiles and the US approval of new F-16 fighter aircraft and upgrade kits for some of Turkey’s older F-16s have broken the impass. This announcement, timed to occur just as the Summit began on July 11th, seemed to be the final push to get Erdogan to agree to Sweden’s accession.[9]
Implications for the Future
The agreement to allow Sweden to continue on the path for NATO membership fortifies the northern approaches to Europe, adds a previously non-aligned nation to the alliance, brings Turkish and NATO capabilities a needed boost in the southern region and emphasizes the leadership role the US plays in NATO.
Sweden has been working to overcome other hurdles to membership. Turkey, Finland, and Sweden at last year’s NATO summit in Madrid all agreed on areas for Sweden to work on in the future. The agreement discussed arms deliveries, stronger anti-terrorism legislation, and more collaboration on extradition requests. Government representatives say Sweden has accommodated these requests, tightening anti-terrorism legislation in June 2022.
In early July 2023, Sweden’s justice minister also said the government could be open to amending its laws around Quran burning, after an incident caused protests in several Muslim-majority countries. “It is clear that we must analyze the legal situation in the light of the spring events and those judgments.”[10]
Given the communique’s emphasis on closer coordination with the EU and a recommitment for the alliance to invest at least the minimum amount (2% GDP) in their collective defense it is time for NATO to become more aggressive with partners on building capabilities that are in fact not redundant and more interoperable. Investments in hypersonics, cyber defense and the entire array of Black Sea Naval capabilities must be thought out on an alliance level, and clearly expressed to enable nations to procure systems that will link together to address the new security environment presented by Russia as well as provide influence over actions taken by nations such as Iran and Syria.
Learn more about the author, Advisory Board member and retired U.S. Air Force Major General Michael Snodgrass.
[1] See: Europe is showing that it could lead its own defense – The Washington Post
[2] See: Why Greece’s Military Budget Is so High (businessinsider.com)
[3] See paragraphs 73 and 74 at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_217320.htm?selectedLocale=en
[4] See: History of the EU, EU pioneers | European Union (europa.eu) https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu_en. See also: European Union – Overview, History, Membership, Insitutions (corporatefinanceinstitute.com) https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/european-union-eu/ and https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-european-union-work
[5] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm
[6] https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/middleeast/turkey-failed-coup-explainer/index.html
[7] Gulen has been described as a moderate Muslim, teaching more inter-faith dialogue and pro-western philosophies. See: Fethullah Gülen | Religion and Public Life at Harvard Divinity School https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/fethullah-g%C3%BClen
[8] See Arguments for and against Turkey’s EU membership – Debating Europe https://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/infobox-arguments-for-and-against-turkeys-eu-membership/
[9] See https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-us-hands-turkey-f-16-jets-backing-sweden-bid-2023-7