Old World states need to put on their big boy pants and stop relying of the US

NATO’s Chicago summit is only a month away, as highlighted by The Economist in last week’s article, ”NATO’s sea of troubles.” The organization, which has been a pillar of global stability since the end of the Second World War, faces an uncertain future due to the European financial crisis and America’s “pivot” towards Asia. While China’s military build-up and the financial crises may have exacerbated the shift from euro-centric military alliances, it remains merely the next logical progression in a two decade long decline in Europe’s role as a military partner for the US. Europe will eventually have to relearn how to defend itself and project its power without an excessive reliance on US military largesse.

To be sure, Europe is currently beset by a host of challenges, all of which may take primacy of funds and action over concerns about member states’ military capabilities. Limited to negative economic growth, an aging population, war exhaustion with Afghanistan, and a reduced threat from rogue states with new NATO missile defense systems will certainly take some of the urgency away from any discussion on future military improvements. In addition, Europe’s biggest economy and one of NATO’s biggest contributors, Germany, withdrew its personnel from NATO assets in the Mediterranean during the Libya campaign. This opt in/opt out approach to military engagements may fly when the US can act as guarantor of military assets and soldiers for NATO campaigns. But as the US shifts its ever diminishing resources to face the growing security threats in the Pacific, Europe may find both its capabilities and credibility tested when large NATO donors fail to rise to the occasion.

Many have dreamt that a combined European defense force would be the EU’s answer to declining military budgets and a reduced US presence. This remains a pipedream. European military integration has always been the red-headed stepchild of the EU process. This is certainly understandable for a number of reasons. Military integration would require that member states relinquish a certain amount of control over their own protection as well as freedom of action. Member states will remain attached to their own domestic manufacturers, constrained by popular revulsion to military intervention, and crippled by welfare obligations. Yet unless European member states radically increase the share of GDP they spend on their respective militaries, or radically lower their expectations to contribute to global security, Leaders will find that military integration is the only way to ensure the safety of the EU as well as the continent’s near abroad.

European member states of NATO need to decide what future role they desire for the alliance. If they wish to continue to work as a real partner for the US in defending the continent and projecting power, they will need to make some hard choices about their approach to European common defense. “Smart defense” can no longer just be a nifty idea to be implemented at a later time. With that in mind, Europeans will have to consider specialization of certain defense industries within the continent, mechanisms to deter major members (read Germany) from opting out of critical operations, as well as investments in air-defense suppression and other capabilities normally provided by Americans.