There are budgetary and tactical imperatives for closer EU-Nato ties, but it could be a long wait, writes Arthur Beesley
EUROPEAN LEADERS want EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to explore deeper ties between the union and Nato. Progress will be slow, with tension between Cyprus and Turkey a barrier to stronger links.
The development comes as the EU reviews its most important strategic relationship, that with the US. It comes before an EU/US summit in Lisbon in November, which takes place alongside a Nato summit on a new “strategic concept” for the alliance.
The EU and Nato co-operate closely already. Many EU members are long-standing Nato members, so there is a de facto overlap between the two. Even non-Nato EU members like Ireland have ties to it through the Partnership for Peace, a forum for bilateral ties between the alliance and third countries.
At an operational level the advance of the EU’s common foreign and security policy has seen European missions work in partnership with Nato in places such as the Balkans. For example, it was the EU that took over from Nato when its missions in Bosnia and Kosovo wound down. In Afghanistan today, EU police trainers work side-by-side with Nato forces.
Nato concentrates on “hard” military power while the EU concentrates more on “soft” power operations: conflict prevention, crisis management and building up civilian structures after conflicts.
Informed sources say it would be no different should the EU and Nato intensify their relationship in “crisis management” situations.
There is no suggestion, for example, that the EU would become involved in Nato’s core missions: mutual defence; and managing a nuclear deterrent. Rather, any deepening of EU/Nato ties would provide a platform to do more of what they both already do together and eliminate inefficiencies.
Dublin is comfortable with this, and satisfied that it does not involve any infringement of Ireland’s military neutrality.
Inefficiencies in the EU’s ties with Nato are rampant, particularly since Cyprus joined the EU in 2004. Cyprus, divided since Nato-member Turkey invaded and occupied the northern third of its territory in 1974, does not allow the transfer of documentation between the EU and Nato. Thanks to Turkey, which does not recognise the Cypriot government, it is more or less the same at Nato.
A closer EU/Nato relationship demands progress on that, but achieving such progress might well depend on a fundamental relaxation of the schism that has bedevilled Cyprus for 36 years. Over the years there’s been plenty of talk, but little progress.
In diplomatic circles, therefore, hopes are not exactly high for an imminent new dawn in the EU’s relations with Nato. Still, pressure on security and defence spending in Europe and the US presents its own imperative. This means all sides want to extract savings from their military operations.
Furthermore, there is a clear push from the US and from Nato itself for an increased engagement on the EU side. This reflects financial pressures, as well as Nato’s recognition that it needs more “soft” power capacity. It could be a long time coming.