Since the beginning of the Cold War, the instrumental nature of transatlantic relations has been indisputable, especially with regards to defending democratic ideals and individual liberties. Strengthening relations between the United States of America and certain European states essentially led to the creation of the “West”, a common term used to refer to the capitalist bloc comprised only of democracies. As the Cold War came to an end and the hostile environment partially disintegrated, questions arose regarding the need for NATO since the Soviet threat had been removed. No definitive response can be provided for this question, which still remains unanswered, but recent debates between world leaders and analysts has drawn more attention towards the uncertain future of transatlantic relations.
Due to the emergence of new transnational security challenges within the past decade, it is important to ask: Will the presence of threats to European security strengthen relations between the United States and the European Union?
The strong nature of transatlantic relations was exemplified through the establishment of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in 1949 to provide collective security against the growing Communist threats. Throughout the Cold War, Europe and the United States were bound not only by their similar democratic beliefs but also by a shared interest to create a stable European continent. Through the financial and military contributions made to NATO, they were involved in supporting fighting Communist rebellions all over the world, most notably in Korea and Vietnam. Transatlantic relations proved to be invaluable to Europe during this period, and economic assistance provided by American policies such as the Marshall Plan helped rebuild and restructure the European economy. Considering the compelling evidence demonstrating the value of transatlantic relations, some believe that despite the rift in relations between America and Europe, current and rising threats to security will offer the motivation required to repair these rifts and enforce cooperative efforts through NATO.
In order to theorize whether transatlantic cooperation is necessary to handle these threats, two principle perspectives are examined: The Realist and the Liberalist perspectives. Realists may argue, influenced by theories of balance of power and hegemony, that prolonged American interest stems from the desire to prevent Russia from developing into a rival power. Liberalists, on the other hand, may contend that increased conflicts over ‘burden-sharing’, questioning of European commitment and presence of a less threatening environment, compared to the one which existed previously, suggests that NATO is no longer helpful (“functioning very well”). These views bring to question important factors such as the balance of power and threat environment.
Security Threats Faced by Europe
There are five predominant security threats faced by European states: unwanted migration and border crimes, Islamist terrorism, cyber threat, hybrid warfare and nuclear threat.
Unwanted Migrants and Border Crimes
“Unwanted migrants” generally refer to those who cross borders without government issued permits and uncontrollable entry of such migrants is seen as a threat to stability and security of the accepting country. In 2016, the member states of the European Union detected approximately 491,900 illegal residents, which is actually a decrease compared to the number reported in 2015. For the past few years, Germany has ranked as the most favored destination for illegal migrants and a majority of the migrant nationalities are Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan. It is important to recognize the link between contemporary threats, like terrorist attacks from external aggressors and civilian protests against huge foreign populations, and immigration. Interestingly, the influx of immigrants in recent years has coincided with the increase in criminal activities at the border such as drug smuggling and weapons smuggling.
Firstly, border patrols have detected an overwhelming increase in drug smuggling. The European Drug Report of 2016 states that over 75% of drug seizures in Europe were cannabis, Morocco being the main provider. Consequently, Spain and Greece reported large increases in cannabis seizures. The European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) declared that the overall quantity of heroin seized in the EU declined from 8 tons in 2009 to almost 5.5 tons in 2013. However, the dramatic rise in immigrants from Afghanistan and Pakistan led to a rise in heroin, seized at 9 tons in 2014. At first glance, this seems to be an issue that each country should deal with independently, but full EU involvement is needed because most trade routes utilized by the smugglers pass through several states. Secondly, weapons smuggling has also been reported at borders. The perpetrators of the Paris terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in January 2015 reportedly used weapons obtained illegally from the Western Balkans. Moreover, military grade weaponry, AK-47s and rocket propelled grenade launchers for instance, have been introduced into illicit European markets. A majority of these arrive from former conflict regions in the Western Balkans, where approximately 800,000 weapons are estimated to be in illegal civilian possession in Bosnia and Herzegovina alone.
In order to deal with the current immigration crises, there needs to be closer cooperation between the member states of the European Union. Transparency of information between the law enforcement agencies and border patrols of the EU is needed to effectively tackle the issues of firearm and drug trafficking. Border crises could be handled by each country individually, but the tightening of immigration laws in states, Germany or Switzerland for example, has caused higher migration rates for neighboring EU countries. The risks posed to security of civilians as a direct consequence of immigration makes this crisis an EU issue due to the shared borders and close proximity of states. Therefore, inter-governmental cooperation is a necessity if the EU wants to impose stricter laws or border checks. Although the United States is concerned about the security of Europe, global governmental intervention appears unnecessary
Terrorism
Following the immigration crisis, security concerns were “emphasized in a deadly fashion by terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, and in Brussels and Nice in 2016” (understanding the European union page 69). After the Syrian Civil War in 2011, there was an inflow of migrants which led to escalation of the refugee crisis. In 2014-2015, the overwhelming immigration rates resulted in a humanitarian crisis during which 3800 refugees died in 2015 alone. This unprecedented inflow of migrants from unstable regions of the Middle East and Balkans has worsened security concerns since popular terrorist groups are known to favor those access routes for infiltration
The dangers of Islamist terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) lies in their ability to influence and radicalize people living in Western regions, convincing them to carry out attacks. In fact, a large majority of attacks originate from supporters who have affiliated with a terrorist group without even visiting their bases in countries like Iran, Syria or Pakistan. One example of such an individual is Mohamed Bouhlel, who killed 84 people with a truck in Nice recently.
The European democratic values directly challenge the ideology promoted by ISIS, and therefore, ISIS strategy tends to focus on persuading Muslims living in the West to pledge allegiance to their ‘caliphates’. The terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2014 and Brussels in January 2016 were orchestrated by ISIS, and al-Qaeda trained men carried out the January 2015 raid on the Charlie Hebdo office.
NATO?
Terrorism is considered a global threat and not a regional one, and therefore it should be dealt with through NATO. There are three factors which motivate American involvement and transatlantic cooperation in this issue. Firstly, these terrorist attacks undermine democracy. In order to reaffirm the balance of power in favor of the democratic West, a united front has to be demonstrated with strong actions against terrorist organizations. Secondly, Europe contains the financial resources to tackle this problem but are heavily reliant on the United States for military contributions. Even in NATO, there is a tradition of higher American contribution when it comes to military; for instance, in 2011, the US spent approximately 4.5% of its GDP on defense whereas the European allies spent 1.6% of their GDP. This increased American contribution has been highly beneficial for Europe, but has also allowed America to maintain their position of power. Lastly, American lives were lost due to these terrorist attacks which makes it a security threat to the American public as well. By coming together, NATO can effectively tackle this threat. European states seem to be unable to deal with this alone, but transatlantic relations allow them access to more advanced power projection and intelligence capabilities.
Cyber Threat
Cyber security is under-funded and recent cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure and political as well as electoral systems has made it a major security concern. These cyber-attacks are becoming increasingly popular against businesses with the intention of undermining a nation’s economy.
In 2007, Russia launched a cyber-attack against former Soviet satellite states such as Ukraine and Estonia, but soon extended this campaign to the United States and Germany. Experts on intelligence and cybersecurity from the United States claim that these attacks coincide with Russian propaganda of exerting its influence over smaller, less powerful countries. In May 2014, a Russian funded hacker group took down Ukraine’s electoral commission three days before Presidential elections were supposed to happen. Although this problem was fixed, Ukrainian officials reported that the hackers were attempting to help the pro-Russian candidate. Similarly, in June 2015 and November 2016, Russian hackers gained access to the email accounts of US Democratic party members and distributed personal exchanges it on the internet. The CIA and FBI are convinced that this was done in order to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign while simultaneously promoting Trump’s.
Hybrid Warfare
“Hybrid Warfare” is defined as a combination of covert, deniable activities undertaken to influence the domestic policies of target countries. Several policymakers have expressed their concerns about Russian use of hybrid warfare, which many include conventional or nuclear forces or non-violent tactics such as cyber attacks. These tactics are especially a threat to Baltic countries which have a significant Russian-speaking population, for instance Estonia and Latvia.
There are concerns that Russia may try to influence these minorities and may try to seize territories in the Baltic regions. In February 2014, masked and unmarked Russian troops entered Ukraine to capture strategic locations in the Crimean Peninsula. Russian propaganda tied to legitimize the military actions, and the use of untraceable forces made it difficult for the Western powers to prove who was behind this. As Russia emphasizes their right to introduce their own foreign policy, they ironically don’t recognize Ukraine’s right to chose further integration into the European Union. President Putin had announced that Crimea was captured to unite territories that are traditionally Russian. However they only aim to protect a certain ethnic group and this along with the unjustified military actions allude to the behaviors of a dictatorship.
In order to face this special threat, a combined effort is needed from the EU as well as NATO. However, being an international organization, NATO needs irrefutable evidence or Russian aggression. Through the use of unmarked military forces and non-violent subversive actions, such as cyber attacks and propaganda, Russian forces intend to provoke instability within Ukraine by segregating the sections of its society to produce a ‘pure’ population. Due to the furtive nature of these operations, it is almost impossible for NATO to prove Russian involvement. Even if they could do so, there are a few weaknesses in NATO’s ‘rapid military response’ policy towards hybrid warfare. Firstly, ‘rapid’ and collective response is nearly impossible since member states often disagree on matters. Secondly, NATO is a military alliance and dealing with this hybrid threat required more than just direct military confrontation. And thirdly, the desire of member states to adopt a deterrent policy is risky because NATO cannot bring back “massive retaliation” when the aggressor also has a large nuclear arsenal.
Despite the shortcomings of NATO, the presence of hybrid warfare has brought certain European countries closer to NATO, despite Russian efforts to prevent this from happening. Sweden and Finland, both of which are not a part of NATO, signed a treaty to establish the European Center of Excellence for countering Hybrid Threat. Despite their historic relations to Russia, both Helsinki and Stockholm considered becoming a part of the NATO military alliance. In May 2015, Sweden signed an agreement with NATO allowing them to conduct training exercises in case of a conflict in the region; Finland signed a very similar agreement in 2014. Therefore, as a result of the hybrid threats, Finland and Sweden appear to be moving closer to NATO.
Despite increasing support for NATO policies from other European countries, and signs of further cooperation within EU member states, the alliance is still not fully equipped to deal with hybrid warfare. However, through increased cooperation between member states of both the EU and NATO and further pooling of intelligence resources to uncover evidence of Russian involvement, they may soon be in a position to overcome this threat.
Nuclear Threat
Recent developments in technology related to weapons of mass destruction has enhanced the threat of Russian nuclear power to Europe. US military officials discovered that Russia has deployed land-based missiles that can rapidly target the entire European continent with nuclear weapons, allowing very little warning and response time; this deployment has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and has broken down all European defense barriers. In 1987, the INF Treaty was signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, and it prevented both the USA and USSR from establishing nuclear missiles with a 500-5500 kilometer range.
According to the Kremlin, the United States along with its NATO allies have posed as a threat to Russian security on numerous occasions since the 1990s. For instance, through the integration of Eastern European and Baltic states into NATO, improvements in defense and nuclear capabilities, assistance provided to rebellious movements within Russia and so on. Specific events have also been recognized to have threated Russian security: the 1990s US campaign in Balkan states, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and NATO intervention in Libya in 2011.
A realist may argue that American interest in curbing Russian nuclear power stems from the desire to maintain the balance of power and ensuring that the US remains the world’s leading global power. A liberalist may argue that American involvement in this threat is motivated by a belief that international institutions, such as NATO, have to come together to preserve democracy. What is common between these two schools of thought is that both would assert that the best way to deal with the risks of a nuclear-powered Russia is through recognizing it as a global issue and not a European one. The United States and Europe must coordinate their responses in order to deal with this issue. Recently, there has been increased questioning of European commitment to the transatlantic alliance, but this security threat actually tests how committed America is to European security. The US does have the option to withdraw from arms control agreements but this would only push Russian nuclear developments further and endanger European security even more. NATO can tackle this problem through implementing defensive measures to counter the threat posed by Russia’s new missiles; for example, implementation of overhead sensors to detect when these missiles are launched and air defense strategies to diminish its effects. Europe, due to its reliance on America for military contributions, cannot face this without NATO intervention.