Is the Transatlantic Relationship Losing its Relevance in the Current Global Security Environment?
Center for European Studies
3324 Turlington Hall
PO Box 117342
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-8966 (fax)
April 19, 2014 from 8:00 am – 9:30 pm in 216 Anderson Hall
Contrary to the expectations of many scholars, the transatlantic alliance has only continued to grow in the size of its membership and the number and intensity of its missions. Yet, there are enduring questions as to the relevance of the alliance. As the United States shifts more of its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, will Europe and the transatlantic alliance become a secondary or tertiary concern in Washington? As the European Union develops the institutional ability to play a greater role on the global stage, will the transatlantic alliance become less relevant in Brussels? This workshop will investigate the specific aspects of the relationship that both unite and form lines of fracture in it.
Produced by the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence and the Center for European Studies. Free and open to the public.
|Saturday, April 19, 2014|
|Time||Topic / Event|
|8:15 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.||Continental Breakfast|
|8:45 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.||General Welcome and Introduction|
|9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.||Commonalities and Divisions on Security between the EU and the US
|10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.||Coffee Break|
|10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.|| Security in an Era of Financial Restraint
|12:15 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.||Lunch|
|1:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.||Emerging Security Challenges and the US-EU Relationship
|3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.||Coffee Break|
|3:45 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.||Roundtable Discussion with Students|
|7:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.||Reception and Dinner (panelists and invited guests)|
David Armitage (U.S. Department of State)
Sizing Up Transatlantic Security Cooperation
It may sound like a cliché, but the United States views Europe as the partner of first resort when it comes to addressing challenges in a complex and unpredictable world. For the most part, we agree on principles and desired outcomes. However, we sometimes differ on emphasis, tactics, and assumptions. To understand the reasons why, it is important to measure US-European approaches to security along three dimensions: defense, development, and diplomacy.
Sven Biscop (Egmont – the Royal Institute for International Relations)
The Summit of our Ambition? European Defense between Brussels and Wales
When they meet at NATO’s Wales Summit in Newport on 4-5 September, the European Heads of State and Government should not see this as the first chapter of a new book, but as the next chapter of an existing one. The previous chapter was their meeting in Brussels last December for the European Council. The title of the book is European defense.
Bernard Cole (National War College)
Butter and Guns: What China Wants from Europe
In November 2013, China and the EU agreed on the “2020 Strategic Agenda of Cooperation.” This meeting also resulted in a joint announcement of “the launch of negotiations of a comprehensive EU-China Investment Agreement.” These talks and other announcements by each side’s leaders emphasize that the EU is China’s largest trading partner and that China is the EU’s biggest source of imports (and second largest trading partner after the U.S.). Negotiations on formulating an investment pact began in January 2013, a goal lauded by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton in late January 2014. In December 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron declared Britain “as China’s strongest advocate in the west” urging conclusion of “an ambitious and comprehensive EU-China free trade agreement.” Within the past month, China’s leader (president, chairman of the CCP, chairman of the CMC) visited Europe, seeking a bilateral trade agreement. Statements by EU leaders note human rights abuses in China, the weak rule of law in China, which includes problems in financial services, corruption, lack of protection of intellectual property rights, environmental problems, and especially difficulties with market access and reciprocity. The U.S.’s status as the world’s largest economy, with its primary role in the trade/economies of the EU and China, its membership in NATO, global military capabilities all contribute to its de facto participation in that relationship. It is under continued U.S. policy that the EU does not sell armaments to China—a complaint by Beijing that continues to arise in talks with the EU and its member nations.
Mai’a Davis Cross (Northeastern University)
Epistemic Communities & European Security Integration: Pre & Post Eurozone Crisis
To a surprising extent, integration in the security realm is occurring in the EU. Epistemic communities – or transnational networks of experts – based in Brussels, are driving integration forward as a result of their objective professional expertise and internal cohesion within their professional grouping. They are able to persuade member-states to agree to policies that lead to a more integrated approach to security. Moreover, in light of the Eurozone crisis and declining defense budgets, pooling and sharing of defense equipment and research are increasing, with new impetus coming from the member states.
Karl-Heinz Kamp (Federal Academy for Security Policy)
Emerging Security Challenges as a Glue for NATO’s Cohesion?
Since more than a decade, non-conventional or emerging security challenges have risen significantly on NATO’s agenda. Terrorism, Cyber or Energy are catchwords NATO is dealing with on a daily basis. Since – at least before the Ukraine crisis – NATO’s classical task of self-defense according to article 5 of the Washington Treaty seemed to be of decreasing relevance, the emerging security challenges appeared to be the unifying element to keep the cohesion of 28 NATO allies. Has this ever been true and how will Russia’s new moves against Ukraine affect the debate?
Anand Menon (King’s College London)
Europe’s Defense Deficit
Under the impact of the economic crisis and a variety of new potential threats , individual European states are less able than ever to ensure their own security. In order to do so, they face a greater need than ever to collaborate over defense policy. To date, and despite much impressive rhetoric, practical steps in this direction have been profoundly underwhelming.
Leo Michel (National Defense University)
The EU as an operational actor: Ambitions, performance, and US equities
For nearly a decade, American policy makers struggled to find a coherent response to the 1998 Franco-British declaration at St. Malo that the European Union “must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises.” After some twists and turns, the EU’s record of some 30 civilian and military missions conducted under its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) has demonstrated both the comparative advantages and limitations of the EU’s role as a security and defense actor. And in contrast with the early years of EU operations involving a military dimension, most Americans are no longer interested in debating whether CSDP risks overshadowing NATO. Instead, they worry whether the EU will be able to mobilize the political will and military capabilities needed to respond effectively to 21st century security challenges in ways that complement US and broader NATO objectives and strategy.
Zachary Selden (University of Florida)
Implications of US Defense Budget Trends
Although the US spends more on defense than all of its European allies combined, US defense budgets are projected to decline as a percentage of GDP in the near-term. Given long-term structural pressures on the overall federal budget, however, it is unlikely that there will be a significant reversal of this trend. Contrary to the negative projections of some analysts, this might have the effect of spurring both greater coordination within Europe and across the Atlantic.
Stanley Sloan (Middlebury College)
Transatlantic Relations: Permanent Alliance or Perpetual Crisis?
During the Cold War, transatlantic relations were often “troubled” but the alliance held together facing the threat from the Soviet Union. At the end of the Cold War, it was commonly predicted that the alliance could not survive without the Soviet threat, but it has grown in both membership and missions. What explains the persistence of this remarkable set of relations?
David Armitage is a senior Europe specialist and head of the European Regional Analysis unit at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). From January 2011-January 2014, he was on detail to the National Intelligence Council, where he served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Europe. From September 2007-November 2008, he was the State/INR representative on the President’s Daily Briefing Staff. Before that, from 2001-2007, he was the principal European Union analyst in INR. Since fall 2008, Dr. Armitage has taught a seminar on European foreign and security policy at American University’s School of International Service. He also is an adjunct fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. In 2004, he was a research fellow at the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, where he focused on the role of the European Union in crisis management and counterterrorism. Dr. Armitage is the author of A Comparative Analysis of US Policy Toward European Defense Autonomy: Enduring Dilemmas in Transatlantic Relations (Mellen Press, 2008), and his articles have been published in the United States, Germany, France, and Italy. Recent publications include: Translating Opportunity Into Impact: Central Europe in the European Union, 2010-2020 (co-author, CEPA 2011) and Europe’s Return: the Impact of the EU’s Newest Members (CEPA 2009). Dr. Armitage holds a Ph.D. in government and politics from the University of Maryland.
Sven Biscop obtained his degree in political science/public administration at Ghent University (Belgium) in 1998, winning the best thesis award for his work on European defence. Awarded the Paul-Henri Spaak PhD scholarship of the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders, he defended his dissertation in 2002, published as Euro- Mediterranean Security: A Search for Partnership (Ashgate, 2003). Currently he is the director of the Europe in the World programme at Egmont – the Royal Institute for International Relations, the think tank associated with Belgian Foreign Affairs, which he joined in 2002. His research focuses on the foreign, security and defence policy of the European Union and its Member States. Sven also teaches, at Ghent University (since 2003) and at the College of Europe in Bruges (since 2007). Sven is a Senior Research Associate of the Centre for European Studies at the Renmin University of China (CESRUC) in Beijing (since 2010), and Associate Fellow of the Austria Institute for European and Security Policy (AIES) in Baden-bei-Wien (since 2011). He sits on the scientific councils of the Flemish Peace Institute (Brussels) and of the Institut d’Etudes Stratégiques de l’Ecole Militaire (IRSEM, Paris), and on the Strategic Advisors Group of the Atlantic Council (Washington). Member of the board of the Flemish United Nations Association, he also serves on the committee of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES).
Bernard Cole Dr. Bernard D. Cole (Captain, USN, Ret.) is Professor of Maritime Strategy at the National War College in Washington, D.C., where he concentrates on the Chinese military and Asian energy issues. He previously served 30 years as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Navy, all in the Pacific, during which he commanded USS RATHBURNE (FF1057) and Destroyer Squadron 35; he also served two tours in Vietnam, one with naval landing craft and one as a Naval Gunfire Liaison Officer with the THIRD Marine Division. Dr. Cole has written numerous articles, book chapters, and seven books: Gunboats and Marines: The U.S. Navy in China, The Great Wall at Sea: China’s Navy Enters the Twenty-first Century, Oil for the Lamps of China: Beijing’s Twenty-first Century Search for Energy, Sea Lanes and Pipelines: Energy Security in East Asia, Taiwan’s Security: History and Prospects, The Great Wall at Sea (2nd ed.), and Asian Maritime Strategies: Navigating Troubled Waters, published in October 2013. Cole earned an A.B. in History from the University of North Carolina, an M.P.A. (National Security Affairs) from the University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in History from Auburn University.
Mai’a David Cross is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Northeastern University and Senior Researcher at the ARENA Centre for European Studies in Oslo, Norway. She is the author of two books: Security Integration in Europe: How Knowledge-based Networks are Transforming the European Union (University of Michigan Press, 2011), which is the 2012 winner of the Best Book Prize from the University Association of Contemporary European Studies, and The European Diplomatic Corps: Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). She is also co-editor (with Jan Melissen) of European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work (Palgrave, 2013). Her work on European foreign and security policy, epistemic communities, smart power, and diplomacy has appeared in a wide range of journals, including Review of International Studies, Millennium, Comparative Politics, International Politics, European Security, and European Foreign Affairs Review. Dr. Cross holds a PhD in Politics from Princeton University, and a bachelor’s degree in Government from Harvard University.
Karl-Heinz Kamp is currently the Academic Director of the German Federal Academy for Security Policy in Berlin. Previously, from 2007 to 2013, he served as the Research Director of the NATO Defense College (NDC) in Rome. He studied History and Political Sciences at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of the German Armed Forces, Ham-burg with a dissertation NATO’s nuclear planning procedures. He is a member of numerous international institutions and academic bodies. In 2009, Secretary Madeleine Albright selected him as one of the Advisors for the NATO Expert Group on the New Strategic Concept, and in 2005 the German Minister of Defense appointed him to the Advisory Board of the Federal Academy for Security Policy.
Anand Menon is a Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College London. Prior to this, Anand was Professor of West European Politics, and founding Director of the European Research Institute at the University of Birmingham. Prior to that he was University Lecturer in European Politics and Fellow of St Antony’s College, Oxford. He has held visiting positions at New York University, Columbia University and the Universite Libre de Bruxelles, amongst others. He is an associate fellow of Chatham House and Senior Associate member of Nuffield College, Oxford. He is co-editor of the journal West European Politics.
Leo Michel is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies (National Defense University), concentrating on transatlantic defense and security issues. Before joining INSS in August 2002, Mr. Michel served over 17 years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon. His positions included: Director for NATO Policy; Director for Non-Nuclear Arms Control; Deputy U.S. Representative to the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Consultative Commission; and Deputy Director, Verification Policy. During 1996-99, he was appointed as the first U.S. Defense Department Representative at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. Before joining the Department of Defense, Mr. Michel worked in the Directorate for Intelligence in the Central Intelligence Agency, as a legislative aide on national security for a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and as a reporter for French media. He was a U.S. Navy officer during 1969-1972, serving aboard the attack aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy. Mr. Michel was promoted to the Senior Executive Service in 2000. He holds a Master’s degree from Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies and a Bachelor’s degree from Princeton University.
Zachary Selden is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida. He was previously the Deputy Secretary General for Policy at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly from 2008-2011 and the Director of the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO PA from 2003-2007. Prior to that posting, he was the International Affairs Analyst in the National Security Division of the Congressional Budget Office (1999-2003) and the Director for Emerging Threats at Business Executives for National Security (1996-1999).
Stanley Sloan is a visiting scholar at the Rohatyn Center at Middlebury College. Over the past decade, he has taught courses on transatlantic relations and American power while lecturing regularly at the NATO College. He concluded government service as the Senior Specialist in International Security Policy at the Congressional Research Service after serving as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Europe at the Central Intelligence Agency. Stan is a graduate of the University of Maine, Columbia’s School of International Affairs, and is a distinguished graduate of the USAF Officer Training School. He has authored dozens of CRS studies, journal articles, opinion editorials and books, his most recent being Permanent Alliance? NATO and the Transatlantic Bargain from Truman to Obama (2010).