[NSP Report 40] Transformation of the US-Europe Alliance in the 21st Century

Professor Kim Jun-seok is currently a professor in the Division of International Studies at Catholic University of Korea. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in Diplomacy from Seoul National University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. His major publications include "Revisiting Confederations: The United States, Germany, the Netherlands, and the European Union," "The European Union and Normative Power," and "The Normative Foundations of European Identity."

I. Introduction

When the Cold War ended in 1991 with the de facto victory of the United States and the West following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many believed that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had lost its reason for existence. Since its inception in 1949, NATO had successfully guaranteed the security of Western European nations against the threat from the Soviet Union and its allies for nearly half a century. However, with the collapse of socialist regimes in most Eastern European countries and the virtual disappearance of the security threat from the Soviet Union, NATO appeared to have fulfilled its historical mission. With the threat that originally prompted the formation of the alliance gone, there seemed to be no reason for its continuation. In particular, in the United States and Canada, public opinion against the continuation of this costly alliance was very strong. When Kenneth Waltz testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November 1990, stating that NATO was "withering away," his remarks not only reflected his views as a realist international relations scholar but also the prevailing skepticism towards NATO in the United States at the time.

However, more than twenty years have passed since Waltz's testimony, and NATO still exists today as an alliance encompassing the United States, Canada, Turkey, and a significant number of European countries. In fact, NATO has not only extended its lifespan but has also played important roles in global conflict zones, including intervening in the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, taking a leading role in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and, albeit to a limited extent, participating in the reconstruction efforts in Iraq led by the United States. This signifies that NATO has sought new roles and a new status beyond its original purpose as a defense alliance aimed at joint responses to common threats. Furthermore, starting with the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1999, followed by seven countries including Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic states in 2004, and most recently Croatia and Albania in April 2009, the number of member states has increased from 16 during the pre-Cold War era to 28.

Despite this expansion of roles and scope, questions remain about the role of an alliance like NATO in an era where the "main enemy" or "common enemy" has disappeared. While efforts to answer these questions continue, their success is still uncertain. In particular, the conflict that emerged between the United States and major European countries such as France and Germany following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the resurgence of Russia seeking to reassert its great power status based on energy resources, the increasing instability in the European periphery due to events like the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, and growing differences in opinion regarding the ultimate vision of the alliance due to its expansion all make predicting NATO's future more difficult.

The most significant issue surrounding NATO's future is whether this military alliance, which recently celebrated its 60th anniversary, will succeed in establishing an identity as a "multipurpose, multifunctional alliance" beyond the classical framework of an alliance as "a union of states for the common use of military force against an external enemy." It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to this question yet. However, we can discern the outlines of a new NATO. In this regard, we can distinguish three roles for NATO, as pointed out by Richard K. Betts (Betts 2009).

First, NATO has strived to resolve conflicts arising from armed conflicts or civil wars between states in regions outside the European continent using military, political, and economic means. In other words, one of NATO's primary missions has become to deter or prevent conflicts and disputes occurring outside its area of operation (out of area) or beyond its borders, thereby preventing the spread of instability.

Second, NATO has increasingly strengthened its character as an association of liberal democratic, market capitalist states, or, in Betts's words, a "gentlemen's club" of such states. Security strategic interests are now no less important than political, ideological, and symbolic interests as drivers for maintaining or newly joining NATO membership.

Third, recently, countering the rise of Russia has become an increasingly important objective in NATO's agenda. This does not mean a revival of the adversarial relationship seen during the Cold War. However, even in the post-Cold War era, Russia remains a "the" other for NATO, an entity fundamentally incompatible with integration and subject to containment and control. This trend has been further amplified by the accession of Eastern European countries to NATO and Russia's increasingly assertive foreign policy stance.

Another variable in this transformation of NATO into a multipurpose, multifunctional alliance is the fact that the relationship between the United States and Europe continues to loosen. This may be a natural consequence of the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of a common enemy. However, during NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999 and its leadership role in the war in Afghanistan since 2001, the United States and European countries have clashed on numerous issues, ranging from the methods of using military force to the ultimate vision of the alliance. In particular, the controversy between the United States and Europe surrounding the Iraq War in 2003 raised serious doubts about the alliance's raison d'être.

In this context, the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), launched in 1999, has become another significant variable in the bilateral relationship. This is because it has become increasingly clear that European countries are seeking to establish the European Union as an independent force on the international stage through this common foreign and security policy, leading to the emergence of the issue of defining the relationship between NATO and the EU. Of course, not all 27 EU member states agree on this objective, and there are considerable differences of opinion among them regarding the nature and goals of ESDP. However, it is clear that the foundation has been laid for the EU to emerge as a unified international actor in foreign and security affairs. The EU has already intervened in various conflict zones around the world, including Africa, undertaking missions such as reconstruction, recovery, public security, and peacekeeping. These activities, which partially overlap with NATO's roles, have become a source of conflict in the relationship between NATO and the EU, and between the United States and Europe.

This chapter examines how the alliance relationship between the United States and Europe has transformed within the changing international political environment since the end of the Cold War, focusing on the aforementioned points. In particular, it forecasts how the bilateral relationship will unfold in light of the launch of the new Obama administration and the advent of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. To this end, Section II will examine the transformation process of NATO since the 1990s and forecast the future direction of the alliance anticipated with the advent of the Obama administration in 2009. Section III will examine the changes in the relationship between NATO and the EU brought about by the emergence of the European Security and Defense Policy and forecast the future of the US-Europe relationship in the 21st century... (continued)