EU-NATO cooperation: a real chewing gum!

(B2) This has become the leitmotif of European leaders and of the Atlantic Alliance: European Union-NATO cooperation has become the "must". " It has become the norm and not the exception swear the officials. A kind of chewing gum chewed all day long which has the same effect of chewing gum. Your jaws are moving, you give the impression of acting, you believe you release a certain energy, a certain force, you have the impression of having a certain freshness in your mouth. But when the chewing gum is finished, it is as odorless as a drop of water and when it dries, it is undetachable but unusable. And the energy intake is more than limited.

Promises yet to be fulfilled

The promises of EU-NATO cooperation, launched at the Warsaw summit, have in fact not been fully realized (diplomatic approach), or even close to zero (realistic approach). Everyone tries to fill the empty glass. But, for the moment, apart from a few droplets, the glass is not filling up quickly. The record seems so poor that EU defense ministers, at their last meeting, were forced to ask “once again” to continue the work (read: NATO-EU cooperation, a better atmosphere but little concrete progress?).

Fluid relationships but difficulty in doing concrete work

Relationships are more fluid. And numerous meetings, from the highest level of experts to the political level. But it stops there. On cooperation in the Mediterranean, we are awaiting the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, so as not to offend the Russians. On the Middle East, the two organizations are out of the circuit, the Americans having control (in a dialogue with the Russians on Syria). In Iraq, NATO seeks to introduce itself so as to have a folding seat in the military coalition. While the EU works more on the humanitarian side, without really having a place in the coalition. The paths are therefore winding for cooperation.

Turkey, blocking point?

Between bd Leopold (NATO) and the roundabout Schuman (EU), there remains a (sacred) problem: Ankara. The Turkish question is currently poisoning not only relations between the EU and Turkey, but could well disrupt the functioning of the Alliance in the long term. Having an ally that is close to the dictatorship could be tolerable in the 1960s (with Greece) when the Cold War was raging. Today, it looks bad. Having an ally who regularly thwarts Western democracies and even the military strategy in Syria led by the main countries of the Alliance is a real challenge.

An organizational dichotomy

Behind the Turkish question lie differences in nature and composition. While most of the member countries of the European Union are members of NATO (with a few small exceptions), this is not the case for the Atlantic Alliance, whose "heavyweights" starting with the United States , but also Turkey, Canada, and the United Kingdom tomorrow are not members (not to mention Iceland, Norway, Albania and Montenegro). The difficulty of having perfect EU-NATO cooperation therefore presupposes having peaceful relations or relations without ulterior motives between the EU and the United States, on the one hand, the EU and Turkey as well as the United Kingdom on the other hand, and to share (more or less) the same interests. It is clear that this is far from being the case... Added to this is a divergent system of political organization: the European Union has a multipolar direction where no member country can be dominant, with parliamentary control and judiciary, while NATO has a governmental regime and a very clear domination of the USA. This is not only the rule, but a rule desired by most other members. Even if certain countries do not agree, when Washington wants something, it gets it, the other allies being reduced to negotiating their rallying.

Discreet but very real competition

In terms of capacity, under the pretext of cooperation, it is rather a competition that we are witnessing, each trying to draw its preferences in a logic of industrial competition, quite logical. Under the argument of sharing the burden (legitimate argument) within NATO, the United States (the main "shareholder" of the Alliance) has another argument: show solidarity, buy American. Which undermines relationships. Washington does not really (and even less under Donald Trump) intend to see European autonomy emerge, contrary to rhetoric. And some countries (like Poland or Lithuania) are very tempted by this reassuring umbrella. It is rather a European dependence that they are aiming for, with just one caveat: the amount of the check that Europeans must pay must be revised upwards.

On Russia, a real understanding

In fact, it is on the Russian file where a certain complicity reigns: in the EU, the economic sanctions, in NATO the muscles of the reinforcement in the East. To go further, there remains a hiatus, always the same, Turkey and above all the Cypriot conflict. Until it is settled, conversations will be civil, the atmosphere friendly between the two organisations, as the Stoltenberg-Mogherini relationship shows. But that's all...

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

Read also: Between Europeans and Americans, there is no misunderstanding but differences