I. Facts on the European Union
II. Map of EU Member States and Candidate Member States
III. Economic Relations
IV. European NATO Countries and the US
V. Membership in NATO and EU
VI. European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP):
Defense Spending Relative to US
VII. ESDP Develops a More Mobile European Force: EU Battlegroups
VIII. European Cooperative Efforts to Enhance Joint Defense Capabilities
IX. European Contribution to the War on Terror (Operation Enduring Freedom)
X. Recommended Reading
Footnotes

The Bush administration's derisiveness toward the French and Germans following their opposition to the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq marked a new low in transatlantic relations. The leading determinant of the rift was the American administration's unilateralist foreign policy. The United States and Europe have continued to diverge on Iraq, the war on terrorism, the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, "secret"CIA prisons for terrorists, aircraft and export tax subsidies, environmental policy, and arms sales to China. While America and Europe share a mutually beneficial, increasingly interdependent trade and investment relationship, numerous trade disputes have emerged in recent years, including wrangling over banana imports, hormone enhanced beef, genetically modified crops, and aerospace subsidies.

The Bush administration's preference for ad-hoc coalitions of the willing over fixed, treaty-based alliances has presented a fundamental challenge to the relevance and viability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—the mainstay of the transatlantic partnership. Despite the contribution of European NATO forces deployed to Afghanistan, the U.S. maintains that ad-hoc coalitions are necessary, especially given the gap between European and American defense capabilities. Even though Europe maintains a force of 2.5 million, it can not deploy more than approximately 55,000 without being overstretched.¹ To this end, successive American administrations have called for Europe to enhance its military capabilities, and the Bush administration has continued to press its European allies to develop more mobile and interoperable forces appropriate for countering terrorism and weapons proliferation.

European defense spending, however, falls far short of American military expenditures, making it difficult for Europe to enhance its defense capabilities. Despite stagnant defense spending, Europe has begun to develop more robust military capabilities—a development that has largely gone unnoticed in American policy circles. To date, within the framework of the European Union's defense arm—European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)—Europe has established a rapid reaction force with thirteen battlegroups, 1,500-strong and able to deploy within 15 days. The E.U. has conducted several crisis management operations in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The U.S. supports the development of ESDP, so long as ESDP maintains ties to NATO. Europe, however, has long aimed to translate its economic power into significant international political influence, and ESDP is seen by some analysts as Europe's effort to develop an autonomous military capability in support of that position.²

I. The European Union
BACK TO TOP

Table 1: Facts on the EU-25 and US

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The 2008 World Fact Book (Washington, DC: CIA, 2007).

Map of EU Member States and Candidate Member States

Click to enlarge Source: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The World Fact Book (Washington, DC: CIA, 2006).

II. Economic Relations
BACK TO TOP

Figure 2: Comparison of 2007 GDP

Table 2: Comparison of Chinese and US GDP and Per Capita GDP in Nominal US Dollars and PPP, 2007

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The 2008 World Fact Book (Washington, DC: CIA, 2007).

Note: The gross domestic product (GDP) gives the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year at official exchange rates (OER), or the Euro annual GDP figure divided by the bilateral average US exchange rate with the EU.

Table 2: EU-27 and US Bilateral Trade Relations, 2007

Imports and exports refer to trade in goods, services and income receipts.

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, http://www.bea.gov/bea/international/bp_web/list.cfm?anon=71

III. European NATO Countries and the US
BACK TO TOP

Figure 1: 2006 Defense Spending by European NATO Countries and US

Click to enlarge Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Data on Military Expenditures: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html.

Figure 2: 2005 Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP for European NATO Countries and US

Click to enlarge Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Data on Military Expenditures, http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html.

IV. Membership in NATO and EU
BACK TO TOP

Table 4: Membership in NATO and EU

Table 3: Membership in NATO and EU

Denmark is a member of both NATO and the EU, but it has opted-out of participation in ESDP.

V. European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)

• At Cologne in June 1999, EU leaders agreed that "the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and the readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO."
• In December 1999, the European Council established the Helsinki Headline Goal for ESDP:
• Co-operating voluntarily in EU-led operations, Member States must be able, by 2003, to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least 1 year military forces of, the Union will be able to carry out the full range of the tasks including up to 50,000-60,000 persons capable of the full range of tasks stated in Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
• New political and military bodies and structures will be established within the Council to enable the Union to ensure the necessary political guidance and strategic direction to such operations, while respecting the single institutional framework.
• On 20 November 2000, the EU held a Capabilities Commitment Conference. EU member states pledged certain capabilities and agreed to make certain quantitative and quantitative improvements to their existing military capabilities in order to meet the Headline Goal by 2003.
• In May 2003, the Council announced that the EU now has operational capability across the full range of tasks, limited and constrained by recognized shortfalls. These limitations and/or constraints are on deployment time and high risk may arise at the upper end of the spectrum of scale and intensity, in particular when conducting concurrent operations.
• In 2004, the Council adopted Headline Goal 2010, with the aim of increasing the ability of the EU to respond with rapid and decisive action in crisis management operations. To this end, the EU seeks the ability to deploy force packages with high readiness, or Battlegroups.

Source: The Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1349&lang=EN.

VI. ESDP Develops a More Mobile European Force: EU Battlegroups
BACK TO TOP

Since January 2005, the EU Battlegroup Concept has reached its Initial Operational Capability. This means that the EU has at least one Battle Group on standby on a permanent basis. On 1 January 2007 the EU Battlegroup Concept reached Full Operational Capability. From that date the EU will be able to fulfill its ambition of having the capacity to undertake two concurrent single battlegroup-sized rapid response operations, including the ability to launch both such operations nearly simultaneously. See The Council of the European Union, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/Battlegroups_February_07-factsheet.pdf.

Table 6: Thirteen (1,500-strong) EU Battle Group Commitments

Table 7: Niche capabilities offered in support of the EU Battle Groups

VII. European Cooperative Efforts to Enhance Joint Defense Capabilities
BACK TO TOP

Table 8: European Cooperative Efforts to Enhance Joint Defense Capabilities

VIII. European Contribution to the War on Terror
BACK TO TOP

Figure 3: Map of Worldwide support in the War Against Terror

Click to enlarge Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/020226-D-6570C-003.jpg

Figure 4: National Contributions to Coalition fighting the War on Terror

Click to enlarge Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/020226-D-6570C-002.jpg

IX. NATO's Mission in Afghanistan (ISAF)

• NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF's mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul. On 5 October 2006, NATO-ISAF took command of the international military forces in eastern Afghanistan from the US-led Coalition. Approximately 43,250 troops (including National Support Elements) are providing support to the Afghan authorities throughout the country, with the aim of boosting efforts to provide reconstruction and development. The Alliance's mission now covers the whole of Afghanistan. NATO is leading some 43,250 troops (including National Support Elements) from 40 countries and 25 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). This is NATO's first and largest ground operation outside Europe. See NATO, ISAF, http://www.nato.int/issues/isaf/index.html.
• ISAF Mission and Command Structure:

Figure 5: ISAF Command Structure

Click to enlarge Source: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf.

Figure 6: National Troops Contributions to ISAF

Click to enlarge Source: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf.

X. Recommended Reading
BACK TO TOP

US-EU Economic Relations

R. Aheam, U.S.-European Union Trade Relations: Issues and Policy Challenges (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 27 March 2002). Available at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/20706.pdf.

F. Breuss, "Economic Integration, EU-US Trade Conflicts, and WTO Dispute Settlement,"Economic Integration Online Papers, 2005, Vol. 9, No. 12. Available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2005-012.pdf.

NATO

K. Archick and P. Gallis, NATO and the European Union (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 6 April 2004). Available at http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32342.pdf.

R. Asmus, Opening NATO's Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era (New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations, 2002). Available at http://www.cfr.org/pub5244/ronald_d_asmus/opening_natos_door.php.

N. Bensahel, The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2003). Available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1746/MR1746.pdf.

H. Kissinger et al., Renewing the Atlantic Partnership (New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations, 2004). Available at http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Europe_TF.pdf.

A. Moravcsik, "Striking a New Transatlantic Bargain." Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003, Vol. 82. No. 3, pp. 74-89. Available at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701faessay15406/andrew-moravcsik?/striking-a-new-transatlantic-bargain.html.

C.R. Nelson, "New Capabilities: Transforming NATO Forces,"Atlantic Council of the United States Report. (Washington, DC: ACUS, 2002). Available at?http://www.acus.org/Publications/policypapers/internationalsecurity/?Capabilites%20Gap%20Report.pdf.

J. Sokolsky, "The Power of Values or the Value of Power? America and Europe in a Post-9/11 World,"Columbia International Affairs Online Briefing Paper. (New York: CIAO, 2003). Available at http://www.ciaonet.org/main/feature05frm.html.

European Security and Defense Policy

J. Batt, et al., "Partners and Neighbors: A CFSP for a Wider Europe,"Chaillot Paper No. 64. (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2003). Available at http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai64e.pdf.

M. Brenner., "Europe's New Security Vocation,"McNair Paper 66. (Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2002). Available at http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair66/McN66.pdf.

B. Crowe, "A common European foreign policy after Iraq?"International Affairs, 2003, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 533-546.

T. Garden and C. Grant, "Europe Could Pack a Bigger Punch,"The Financial Times. 17 December 2002. Available at http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/grant_ft_17dec02.html.

C. Hill, "The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe's International Role,"Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3 (September 1993): 305-328.

H. Larsen, "The EU: A Global Military Actor?"Cooperation and Conflict, 2002, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 283-302.

C. Wolf and B. Zycher, "European Military Prospects, Economic Constraints, and the Rapid Reaction Force,"RAND MR1416. (Santa Barbara: RAND Corp, 2001). Available at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1416/.

Books

Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, An Alliance at Risk: The United States and Europe since September 11, George A., Jr. Holoch, trans. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2003).

Philip Gordon and Jeremy Shapiro Allies At War: America, Europe and the Crisis Over Iraq (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004).

Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Knopf, 2003).

Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century (New York: Vintage, 2003).

Tod Lindberg, ed., Beyond Paradise and Power (New York: Routledge, 2004).

Footnotes
BACK TO TOP

1. K.L. Vantran," NATO Countries Have Same Goal, Says Secretary-General" American Forces Press Service (9 October 2003) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military /library/news/2003/10/ mil-031009-afps01.htm

2. See Christopher Hill,"The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role," Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3 (September 1993): 305-328.