The concept of NATO without the U.S. is often considered science fiction, yet discussions about the alliance's duration with limited U.S. participation have occurred and will likely continue.
These discussions, involving politicians, political scientists, and journalists, raise questions about the transatlantic agreement's quality in the 21st century, the European integration project's shape, and Europe's political, economic, and defense condition.
The chapter aims to analyze European defense sovereignty projects, considering the necessary concepts, means, and political will for implementation, taking into account perspectives from both sides of the Atlantic.
Winston Churchill: "There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them."
The idea of NATO without the U.S. seems like science fiction.
Despite fluctuations, the transatlantic relationship has endured for over seven decades.
The alliance, formed in 1949, relies on America's military umbrella (including nuclear) for Europe's protection, ensuring a permanent U.S. military presence.
The Cold War's end didn't significantly alter this dynamic for European members or Washington.
The alliance has persisted, defying the pattern of alliances dissolving after achieving victory.
Stanley R Sloan: The alliance founders envisioned a transatlantic agreement of joint action in post-war Europe, with the US protecting the continent. The transatlantic agreement is evolving with adaptation and modernization (geographic scope, new threats).
Not everyone is satisfied with the speed and nature of the Alliance's changes.
The notion of no US military presence in Europe is increasingly discussed, leading to speculation.
President Barack Obama announced a focus shift to Southeast Asia.
During Donald Trump's presidency, the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and considered withdrawing from NATO.
Trump's claims that European allies weren't sharing the monetary burden created unease and fear about a potential arms race.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, suggested America was turning its back on Europe, calling NATO "brain-dead”.
Politicians, political scientists, and journalists discussed the alliance's future without America and the prospects for "European sovereignty" in security.
Analyzing this discourse reveals several levels:
Reviewing the evolution of transatlantic relations, changes in the global order, and challenges to international security.
Considering European security autonomy as a way to prepare Europe for functioning without the United States.
Debating how to transform transatlantic relations to make the European Foreign and Security Policy an equal pillar of NATO's security partner.
Trans-Atlantic Love-Hate Story
“Understanding is based on a share basis, and those were and still are the values
personifed by Western civilisation, which, like a bridge over the Atlantic Ocean, connects
two cousins with some precious blood ties. (…) Understanding, ultimately, should rely on
common sense, which avoids extremes and the squabbling between opposities. Some
tensions in transatlantic relations do, and will, remain” (Lukasik, Arnold, 2012, 54).
William Shakespeare: Called “the great author of America” by German immigrants to the USA in the 19th century.
Shakespeare: Intermediator and interlocutor etween love and hate that is the main content of his plays. Particulary oustanding and well known is his tragedy Romeo and Juliet.
Romeo and Juliet: Tragedy of lovers form two warring families in Verona demonstrates a fight between people of the same kinship, blood relationship, and culture (Lukasik, Arnold, 2012, 24).
The transatlantic alliance's history can be viewed as a love-hate story.
According to Lord Hastings Ismay, NATO's first secretary-general, NATO was designed to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
Rather than keeping the Germans ‘down’, however, it would be more accurate to say that NATO has enabled Germany to demonstrate to its allies and to others that it is ‘in convoy’ as a reliable and trustworthy partner.
The Alliance has become a platform for the transatlantic community.
Karl Deutsch: Defined by Karl Deutsch, social and political scientist, in 1957 as a “pluralistic security community”, the Euro- Atlantic space followed the course, after 1945, towards the integration of the transatlantic political actors.
Integration: the acquisition, within a territorial unit, of a “sense of community” – the belief, held by the actors, that the resolution of the problems should be carried out preferably with no recourse to force and by the institutionalization of political processes - which leads to the creation of institutions and strong and widespread practices that ensure the peaceful resolution of problems within that community (Deutsch, 1957).
This community experienced disagreements and conflicts during the Cold War.
Charles De Gaulle: Wanted to be an ally of the USA but he wanted to leave the defense to Europe. Today, a similar attitude is presented by some European NATO members (Yost, 2011, 277-300).
America's role as an ally and peacemaker in the Alliance has always been vital.
According to Rodric Braithwaite, “Greece and Turkey have more than once been on the verge of war. They were prevented from going over the edge not by their common membership of NATO, but by US pressure unilaterally applied.