Just as America and Europe cannot remain secure and prosperous without one another, our transatlantic community cannot be secure and prosperous in isolation from the rest of the world. Globalization and the information revolution are proceeding at different speeds across the globe, but certain overall trends are clear and irreversible. Economic interdependence is growing, artificial barriers to the free dissemination of knowledge are falling, and constraints on international relations once imposed by time and distance are shrinking. These developments open new opportunities for cooperation between the United States and Europe to advance our shared interests beyond the Euro-Atlantic Community. But they also bring new risks and challenges to those interests that no nation can meet alone.
This chapter outlines U.S. strategy to work with Europe on global security issues. It also highlights specific regions where U.S.-European cooperation could be strengthened.
Security Threats Posed by Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Weapons
NBC weapons and their delivery systems pose a major threat to international security. Over 20 countries-several of which are virtually on Europe's doorstep-already possess or are developing such weapons and/or delivery systems. The continued proliferation and potential use of NBC weapons directly threatens the United States, its Allies and friends, and could destabilize other regions of critical importance to us.
American military superiority cannot shield us completely from this threat. U.S. dominance in the conventional military arena will likely encourage potential adversaries to resort to asymmetric means for attacking U.S. forces and interests overseas and Americans at home. U.S. defense planners must assume that use of NBC weapons to disrupt U.S. operations and logistics is a likely condition of future warfare.
To address the NBC weapons threat, the United States pursues a multidimensional strategy. Each component of our strategy depends, to varying degrees, on close cooperation with our transatlantic Allies and Partners, backed up by active bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts. For example:
- Export control regimes. The United States has no monopoly on the development, application, and sale of "dual-use" equipment, technologies, and technical information. These are legitimate, even indispensable staples of our domestic economy and of international trade within and beyond the transatlantic community. However, a large and growing range of "dual-use" goods and expertise also are actively sought by proliferators for offensive weapons programs. Through international regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Nuclear Suppliers Group, the United States works with a number of European and other states to limit the transfer of sensitive "dual-use" items to states posing a proliferation concern.
- Arms control and international nonproliferation agreements. The United States, its Allies and Partners (including Russia and Ukraine) play vital roles in several legally binding multinational agreements aimed, at least in part, at preventing the proliferation of NBC weapons. These include the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1972 Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention, and 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Close cooperation among our Allies and Partners on a routine basis is required to ensure effective implementation of and compliance with existing agreements, and this will be the case as well for the 1994 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, once it enters into force (16). While our primary objective is to prevent the proliferation of NBC weapons and their associated delivery systems, we recognize that prevention might not succeed in every case.
- Deterrence. The United States deters threats and potential threats to its national security, including those from NBC weapons states, by maintaining powerful nuclear and conventional forces. Those who would threaten America or its allies in Europe or elsewhere with NBC weapons should have no doubt that any attack on us would meet an overwhelming and devastating response. DoD also has undertaken a comprehensive program to equip, train, and prepare U.S. forces to prevail in conditions in which an adversary threatens to use or actually uses these weapons against our populations, territories, or military forces. This combination of offensive and defense capabilities both strengthens deterrence and ensures that we will prevail should deterrence fail.
- As previously discussed, our Allies contribute-for example, through basing, infrastructure, and overflight and transit rights-to U.S. capabilities to project our forces, if necessary, beyond Europe. Moreover, the independent British and French nuclear forces play an important role in deterring any attack on their respective vital national interests. Our Allies and potential coalition partners also must be prepared to counter NBC threats or attacks to ensure that we maintain a cohesive political and military front during a crisis.
- Deterrence. The United States deters threats and potential threats to its national security, including those from NBC weapons states, by maintaining powerful nuclear and conventional forces. Those who would threaten America or its allies in Europe or elsewhere with NBC weapons should have no doubt that any attack on us would meet an overwhelming and devastating response. DoD also has undertaken a comprehensive program to equip, train, and prepare U.S. forces to prevail in conditions in which an adversary threatens to use or actually uses these weapons against our populations, territories, or military forces. This combination of offensive and defense capabilities both strengthens deterrence and ensures that we will prevail should deterrence fail.
At the 1999 Washington Summit, Alliance leaders took increased note of the NBC threat and agreed, in response, that NATO capabilities, doctrine, training, and exercises must be improved to better deter and defend against the use of such weapons. In concert with the DCI, counter-proliferation-related capabilities must be fielded and commensurate NBC defense doctrine, training, and exercises improved.
As a result of the Washington Summit WMD Initiative, several complementary efforts are underway. NATO's Senior Politico-Military Group on Proliferation (SGP) has expanded its discussion of nonproliferation issues in support of the Alliance's primary prevention goal. At NATO headquarters, there is a newly established WMD Center, comprised of political, defense, military, and intelligence experts, to integrate and coordinate intra-Alliance work on a wide range of NBC-related issues. Notably, work has begun on a data collection that will serve as a common resource for Alliance decision-making and will support cooperative means to respond to the use of NBC weapons against civilians.
The United States continues to work to enhance cooperative activities with our Allies, and we are extending these activities where appropriate to Partner countries. We complement these activities through bilateral programs of information exchange and technical cooperation with Allies. As we do so, the United States is likely to encounter differences with some nations over the assessment of capabilities and intentions of any given state of concern. We will do our best to prevent such disagreements from blocking needed improvements to Alliance capabilities.
Ballistic Missile Defenses
For America and Europe, the threat posed by ballistic missiles capable of delivering NBC weapons from several states of concern is substantial and increasing.
- Iran is buying and developing long-range missiles. It has flight tested a 1,300-km Shahab-3 missile and, within a decade, could test a missile capable of reaching all NATO territory and much of the United States. Iran has chemical weapons, and is seeking nuclear and biological capabilities.
- Before the Gulf War, Iraq had loaded chemical and biological weapons into missile warheads, and was close to achieving a nuclear capability. UN sanctions have slowed, but probably not stopped, Iraq's efforts to produce NBC weapons and develop or buy long-range missiles to deliver them.
- Libya has chemical weapons capabilities and is trying, as well, to acquire long-range missiles.
- North Korea is building and selling long-range missiles and has assembled an arsenal with chemical, biological, and probably nuclear capabilities. It has developed and may soon test the Taepo Dong 2 missile that could reach U.S. territory.
We project that all of the above states will have missile forces in the next 5 to 15 years that could be used to threaten the homelands of all NATO members.
Theater Missile Defense (TMD)
As part of broader efforts to enhance the security of the United States, Allied and coalition forces against ballistic missile strikes and to complement our counter-proliferation strategy, the United States is pursuing opportunities for TMD cooperation with NATO Partners. The objectives of United States cooperative efforts are to provide effective missile defense for coalition forces in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 operations against short to medium range missiles. In its Strategic Concept, NATO reaffirmed the risk posed by the proliferation of NBC weapons and ballistic missiles, and the Alliance reached general agreement on the framework for addressing these threats. As part of NATO's DCI, Allies agreed to develop Alliance forces that can respond with active and passive defenses from NBC attack. Allies further agreed that TMD is necessary for NATO's deployed forces.
Several Allies currently field or will shortly acquire lower tier TMD systems. For example, Germany and the Netherlands both field the PAC-2 missile and naval forces of several Allies are considering cooperation with the United States to field maritime missile defenses. An important development in the operational TMD area was the creation in December 1999 of a trilateral U.S.-German-Dutch Extended Air Defense Task Force.
The Alliance is undertaking a feasibility analysis for a layered defense architecture. As the ballistic missile threat to Europe evolves in the direction of longer ranges, the Alliance will need to consider further measures of defense incorporating upper-tier TMD and/or a defense against longer-range missiles.
On a separate but complementary track, ongoing U.S. TMD cooperation with Russia is an excellent example of how cooperative approaches to dealing with new regional security challenges of mutual interest, such as the proliferation of ballistic missiles, can advance U.S. and transatlantic security interests.
National Missile Defense (NMD)
Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea do not need long-range missiles to intimidate their neighbors; they already have shorter-range missiles to do so. Instead, they want long-range missiles to coerce and threaten more distant countries in North America and Europe. They presumably believe that even a small number of missiles, against which we have no defense, could be enough to inhibit U.S. actions in support of our Allies or coalition partners in a crisis.
Based on our assessment of these trends, the United States has concluded that we must counter this threat before one of these states attempts to blackmail the United States from protecting its interests, including commitments to our Allies in Europe and elsewhere. Thus, the United States is developing a NMD system that would protect all 50 states from a limited attack of a few to a few tens of warheads. NATO's Strategic Concept recognizes that "(t)he Alliance's defense posture against the risks and potential threats of the proliferation of (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons and their means of delivery must continue to be improved, including through work on missiles defenses." As the U.S. NMD effort progresses, we need to continue close consultations with our Allies on relevant policy and technical issues.
Although Moscow argues to the contrary, the limited NMD system the United States is developing would not threaten the Russian strategic deterrent, which could overwhelm our defense even if Russian strategic forces were much lower than levels foreseen under existing U.S.-Russian strategic arms reduction agreements. Moreover, the U.S. proposal to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty include measures of cooperation and transparency that would give Russia confidence that the NMD system was not being expanded beyond its limited scale.
China has a more modest nuclear force than Russia, but has a multifaceted nuclear modernization program that predates NMD. Our NMD system is not designed to neutralize China's strategic capabilities.
NMD is a complement to our policies of deterrence and prevention, not a substitute. We will continue to rely on diplomacy, arms control and traditional deterrence-the credible threat of an overwhelming and devastating response-to dissuade states of concern from attacking or coercing their neighbors or anyone else (17). But today, when a state of concern might attempt to coerce the United States or it Allies, it is not prudent to rely exclusively on deterrence by overwhelming response, especially when we have the option of a limited, but effective defense.
The NMD we envisage would reinforce the credibility of U.S. security commitments and the credibility of NATO as a whole. Europe would not be more secure if the United States were less secure from a missile attack by a state of concern. An America that is less vulnerable to ballistic missile attack is more likely to defend Europe and common Western security interests than an America that is more vulnerable.
As consultations proceed with our Allies on NMD, we realize that Allies will continue to consider the appropriate role of missile defenses in their respective national security strategies. In keeping with the fundamental principle of the Alliance that the security of its members is indivisible, the United States is open to discussing possible cooperation with Allies on longer-range ballistic missile defense, just as we have with our discussions and cooperation in the area of TMD. As President Clinton said in May 2000, "every country that is part of a responsible international arms control and nonproliferation regime should have the benefit of this protection."
In September 2000, President Clinton announced that while NMD was sufficiently promising and affordable to justify continued development and testing, there was not sufficient information about the technical and operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward with deployment. In making this decision, he considered the threat, the cost, technical feasibility and the impact on our national security of proceeding with NMD. The President's decision will provide flexibility to a new administration and will preserve the option to deploy a national missile defense system in the 2006-2007 time frame.
"Non-Traditional" Transnational Threats
Terrorism, international crime, and illegal trade in fissile materials and other dangerous substances are prime examples of "nontraditional" transnational threats to the security of the transatlantic community and its citizens. These threats come in many forms. Terrorist groups might have nationalist, ethnic, or religious motivations-or a combination of these. Their means of terror range from conventional firearms and explosives to chemical, biological, and possibly radiological weapons, to "cyber" attacks on state or privately-run information systems. Transnational criminal organizations based on trafficking in drugs and human beings are growing more diversified and sophisticated. The lawless groups involved in these activities have no hesitation in taking major steps to disrupt existing political and economic structures for their own gain. In the end, their use of corruption and extortion undermines the integrity and effectiveness of governments, particularly in fragile democracies. Most victims of terrorism and transnational criminal organizations are civilians, but military and government personnel also are targets of deadly attack.
The United States, its Allies and Partners share important security interests in cooperating in the fight against terrorism and international crime in all its forms. Americans and Europeans alike are the targets- and victims-of these scourges. No government within the transatlantic community can properly defend and protect its citizens, whether at home or abroad, if those who would prey upon them enjoy safe havens or even protection from states beyond our common borders.
While our first line of defense relies heavily on civilian authorities- including intelligence agencies, national and local law enforcement, and civilian emergency response-military forces have unique capabilities to defend against and, if necessary, respond to attacks on our national interests by terrorists or others. Even so, military forces and infrastructure- and particularly deployed U.S. and Allied forces-can often become targets of terrorist attack, the most trenchant example being the attack against the USS Cole in Yemen. We will continue to work closely with our Allies and Partners to ensure that force protection remains a priority.
At the strategic level, we seek to ensure that the emerging threat of NBC terrorism and the proliferation of NBC materials and expertise are vigorously addressed. The 1999 Washington Summit provided an opportunity for NATO to set in motion concrete steps to strengthen its political will and military capabilities to deal with the threat of modern terrorism and NBC weapons.
NATO's Strategic Concept acknowledged the threat such weapons pose to Allied territory and citizens and launched an effort, under the WMD Initiative, to strengthen common understanding about NBC issues, improve intelligence and information sharing, and integrate political and military aspects of Alliance work in responding to NBC proliferation. Although the United States remains a target for terrorism, we will not be intimidated, and we will not withdraw from our role in Europe or elsewhere in the world. We are upgrading security at home and overseas, at diplomatic posts and military installations worldwide. We remain steadfast in our determination to protect American citizens and diplomatic and military personnel, and we will continue to use all necessary means to counter terrorism and hold terrorists accountable for their actions.
Building Security in Regions Beyond Europe
In contrast with the United States, European states-with a few notable exceptions-have not maintained military forces or engaged in large-scale military actions outside Europe since the end of World War II (18). Instead, European states, acting individually or within the EU, have concentrated almost exclusively on political and economic levers to advance their interests in regions outside Europe. The most notable exception in recent years has been the coalition effort that was assembled and, to a considerable degree, has been sustained in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Should this remain true indefinitely? The EU, after all, represents a powerful economic force and increasingly seeks to take joint action in foreign and security affairs. The United States, for its part, has neither the desire nor the capability to engage its military in every crisis response or humanitarian relief contingency that might arise anywhere in the world. It is in our mutual interest, therefore, to find better ways for the American and European pillars of the transatlantic community to work together to strengthen security and stability in regions outside Europe.
Persian Gulf, Middle East, and Mediterranean Littoral
The United States and Europe share a number of common long-term interests in these strategic areas. These include maintaining uninterrupted access to regional energy resources, stemming the development and proliferation of NBC weapons, ensuring the success of the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), and combating terrorism. In practice, the United States has worked with several European states to advance our common interests. Examples of this include: our multilateral efforts during the 1980s to end the Lebanese civil war; the 1990-91 international coalition to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; the subsequent establishment of UN sanctions intended to destroy Iraq's NBC capabilities and prevent their reconstitution; and arranging, at critical times, sensitive negotiations to advance a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Military cooperation in pursuit of stability in the Gulf has continued since the liberation of Kuwait. For example, at least ten NATO countries have participated in maritime interception operations for sanctions enforcement since then, and the UK and France have participated with the United States in patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq in support of UN resolutions. Turkish support was indispensable to preventing a humanitarian disaster in northern Iraq in the wake of the Baghdad regime's repression of the people of the area. European states have also taken an active part in the multinational BRIGHT STAR exercise program conducted biennially with Egypt.
We have had differences with some of our Allies over specific aspects of each of these and other regional issues. In some cases, these reflect differences in our respective historical and cultural ties to countries in the region and our assessments of those countries' capabilities and intentions. In other cases, differing economic interests (real or perceived) can influence debates over appropriate policies to address regional problems. Indeed, in the security sphere, we often find our cooperation hampered by intense competition for sales of defense equipment, sometimes to the detriment of regional interoperability.
Although it is unrealistic to expect that the United States and its European Allies will adopt identical policies toward this region anytime soon, we should seek to improve our cooperation and develop complementary efforts in key areas to meet common long-term interests. Specifically, we need to work in concert-through export controls, diplomatic and economic pressures, and (if necessary) the appropriate use of military force-to prevent the proliferation of NBC capabilities throughout the region. In the near term, these capabilities will pose a greater direct threat to European territory than to our own.
U.S.-European cooperation also is essential to build stronger support within the region for the MEPP. European states can play an important role in encouraging both sides to take the difficult but necessary steps to a just and lasting peace. Together, we should look for ways to apply our collective experience to lessen tensions, improve confidence, and build positive security relations among all parties in the Middle East. OSCE, CFE, and PfP all have elements that could serve as models for post-MEPP relations in the Middle East. In addition, the military and civilian crisis response capabilities that the EU seeks to build through ESDP could play a role in the implementation of eventual peace settlements between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon.
We also need to seek ways to build bridges between the greater Middle East and the Euro-Atlantic Community. One forum for this already exists in the form of NATO's "Mediterranean Dialogue," encompassing Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. To date, however, the press of other business in the Alliance has not allowed the Dialogue to receive the attention it requires. Both the Dialogue and less formal opportunities to link these two vital regions require increased effort.
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa is another region where the United States and Europe have a broad, common interest in promoting a stable security environment. Without basic security, several countries in the region will be unable to sustain their positive movement toward democratic government, respect for human rights, and economic development based on free markets. Meanwhile, countries still in the grip of authoritarian rule or mired in civil war and economic collapse will lose any hope of modernization or recovery. The plagues of environmental degradation, drug trafficking, support for international terrorism, highly infectious diseases such as HIV, and large-scale humanitarian disasters will intensify and expand across Africa. For many reasons-historical and cultural ties, the importance of African natural resources, humanitarian and national security concerns-the transatlantic community cannot turn its back on this region.
In fact, U.S. military forces have had to deploy to Sub-Saharan Africa several times in recent years. For example, we have supplied critical logistical support for humanitarian relief operations in Mozambique; conducted noncombatant evacuation or security operations for U.S. embassies in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, and Liberia; and provided security, medical support and investigation services in Kenya and Tanzania after terrorists struck the U.S. embassies in 1998. Similarly, several European countries have deployed military forces, either on a national basis or within the context of UN-mandated operations, to safeguard their citizens, stabilize fragile democratic governments, or respond to humanitarian crises.
Nevertheless, the ever-increasing demands on U.S. military forces around the globe, combined with Europe's preoccupation with the situation in the Balkans, likely will continue to limit our respective operational capacities and domestic political support for military deployments to Sub-Saharan Africa. The advantages of improved cooperation among the United States, Europe, and the sub-Saharan governments willing to work with us should be clear to all. We will continue to work closely with several Allies on specific projects, training programs, and exercises aimed at contributing more efficiently to building African capabilities to stabilize their security environment.
Asia
The United States and Europe share a strong interest in promoting stability and security in Asia. Both have extensive trade and investment ties with this enormous and dynamic region, and are aiming to strengthen their presence in Asian markets. The EU, for example, is the third largest trading partner-after Japan and the United States-of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Like the United States, the EU provides extensive economic assistance, through both governments and non-governmental organizations, to the region's less developed members. Both the United States and EU seek to promote respect for human rights in Asia and advocate the gradual integration of China into the world economy together with the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. Both are concerned by the proliferation of NBC capabilities in and emanating from the region.
Unlike the United States, which maintains approximately 100,000 military personnel in the Asian-Pacific region and strong defense and military links to key countries such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, the EU has not been directly involved in security arrangements in Asia. Nevertheless, it has demonstrated that it can play a helpful role in improving the security environment. In the critical matter of relieving tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the EU contributes about $15 million annually to the Korea Energy Development Organization to buy heavy fuel oil for North Korea in support of international efforts to discourage that country's development of nuclear weapons. The EU also has joined ASEAN and the United States in region-wide discussions to promote mutual understanding, transparency, and trust. In addition, several European countries have contributed military personnel to the UN-led peacekeeping operation in East Timor.
The United States would welcome a growing EU dialogue with Asian countries on security-related issues, including the need to prevent NBC proliferation, control the sale of ballistic missile technologies, and resolve outstanding territorial issues by peaceful means. U.S. cooperation with European nations during the East Timor crisis, when the United States provided logistical and other support for the deployment of European peacekeepers, is another example of how we can work productively together to respond to regional crises outside Europe. In addition, it is useful to note that some PfP nations are located in Central Asia, and their capitals are closer to the Pacific than to the Atlantic. Thus transatlantic cooperation can have a direct impact on essentially Asian nations.
16. Other examples of the need for close U.S.-European cooperation have involved the UN-mandated effort, which has been frustrated by Iraqi intransigence, to eliminate Iraq's WMD capabilities and to prevent their reemergence.
17. Similarly, the independent British and French nuclear deterrents would not be undermined by the NMD capabilities allowed under the U.S. proposal to modify the ABM Treaty.
18. France and the UK are the principal exceptions.
 |
 |
 |