NATO and the European Union (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (27 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Jan. 29, 2008 |
| Report Number |
RL32342 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Kristin Archick and Paul Gallis, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Jan. 23, 2007 (26 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 3, 2006 (29 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised May 12, 2005 (26 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 4, 2005 (26 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium April 6, 2004 (23 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Since the end of the Cold War, both NATO and the European Union (EU) have evolved along with Europe's changed strategic landscape. While NATO's collective defense guarantee remains at the core of the alliance, members have also sought to redefine its mission as new security challenges have emerged on Europe's periphery and beyond. At the same time, EU members have taken steps toward political integration with decisions to develop a common foreign policy and a defense arm to improve EU member states' abilities to manage security crises, such as those that engulfed the Balkans in the 1990s.
The evolution of NATO and the EU, however, has generated some friction between the United States and several of its allies over the security responsibilities of the two organizations. U.S.-European differences center around threat assessment, defense institutions, and military capabilities. Successive U.S. administrations and the U.S. Congress have called for enhanced European defense capabilities to enable the allies to better share the security burden, and to ensure that NATO's post-Cold War mission embraces combating terrorism and countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. policymakers, backed by Congress, support EU efforts to develop a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) provided that it remains tied to NATO and does not threaten the transatlantic relationship.
Most EU member states support close NATO-EU links, but also view ESDP as a means to give themselves more options for dealing with future crises, especially in cases in which the United States may be reluctant to become involved. A minority of EU countries, spearheaded traditionally by France, continue to favor a more autonomous EU defense identity. This desire has been fueled further recently by disputes with the United States over how or whether to engage international institutions, such as the United Nations, on security matters and over the weight given to political versus military instruments in resolving international crises.
This report addresses several questions central to the debate over European security and the future of the broader transatlantic relationship that may be of interest in the second session of the 110th Congress. These include what are the specific security missions of NATO and the European Union, and what is the appropriate relationship between the two organizations? What types of military forces are necessary for NATO's role in collective defense, and for the EU's role in crisis management? Are NATO and EU decision-making structures and procedures appropriate and compatible to ensure that there is an adequate and timely response to emerging threats? What is the proper balance between political and military tools for defending Europe and the United States from terrorism and weapons proliferation? What is the effect of enlargement on security and stability?
This report will be updated as events warrant. For more information, see CRS Report RL33627, NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, by Paul Gallis, and CRS Report RS21372, The European Union: Questions and Answers, by Kristin Archick.
