Problems of Transition

  • Niels J. Haagerup
  • Christian Thune
Part of the Studies in International Security book series (SIS)

Abstract

This chapter attempts to answer the question of how an EDE may be achieved. After outlining the historical background for Western European cooperation in security and defence, the discussion centres on the political basis for relating defence cooperation to political and economic integration, and on the possible institutional framework. The problems of collaboration in arms procurement — an essential part of the problem — are also looked at. Finally, the domestic political basis for a move towards defence cooperation will be measured to see what the odds are for creating or recreating the necessary political consensus among and within the Western European nations.

Keywords

Europe Turkey Defend Stake Rene 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For a discussion of the various post-war defence arrangements see Alfred Grosser, The Western Alliance: Euro-American Relations since 1945 (London: Macmillan, 1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. Raymond Aron and Daniel Lerner, France Defeats EDC (London: Thames & Hudson, 1957).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cited in Edward Fursdon, The European Defence Community: A History (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cf. William Wallace: ‘Europe as a Confederation: The Community and the Nation States’, in L. Tsoukalis (ed.), The European Community Past, Present and Future (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a broad presentation of the early development of EPC see the contributions to David Allen, Reinhardt Rummel and Wolfgang Wessels (eds), European Political Cooperation (London: Butterworth, 1982).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    See the contributions of Denmark, Ireland and Greece by N. J. Haagerup, C. Thune, P. Keatinge and P. Tsakaloyannis in C. Hill (ed.), National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1983).Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Cf. the presentation of the NATO viewpoint in this connection by S. I. P. van Campen, ‘NATO Political Consultation and European Political Cooperation’, in Frans A.M. Alting von Geusau (ed.), Allies in a Turbulent World (Lexington, MA and Toronto: Lexington Books, 1982).Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    See Josef Joffé, ‘The “Scandilux” Connection: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway in Comparative Perspective’, in Gregory Flynn (ed.), NATO’s Northern Allies (London: Croom Helm, 1985).Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    André Brigot, ‘Une Coopération Franco-Allemande en Matière de Sécurité: Est-elle Possible?’, in Groupe d’Études sur les Conflits et les Stratégies en Europe, Sécurité et Défense de l’Europe, Le Dossier Allemand (Paris: Fondation pour les Études de Défense National, 1985).Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    For a relevant discussion of recent tendencies in the EPC, see William Wallace, ‘Political Cooperation: Integration through Intergovernmentalism’, in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Carole Webb (eds), Policy Making in the European Communities, 2nd edn (Chichester: Wiley, 1983).Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Again, see Trevor Taylor in Chapter 8. For a general presentation, see Panos Tsakaloyannis (ed.), The Reactivation of the Western European Union: The Effects on the EC and its Institutions (Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration, 1985). For a British viewpoint, see James Eberle et al., ‘European Security and British Interests’, International Affairs, 60, 4 (1984).Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Cf. Simon Lunn, Burden Sharing in NATO, Chatham House Papers No. 24 (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1984);Google Scholar
  13. Sir Frank Cooper, Pre-Conditions for the Emergence of a European Common Market in Armaments, CEPS Papers No. 18 (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 1985); and Brian Field: ‘Economics and Defence Resources: The Prospect’, NATO Review, 5 (1985).Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    For a US perspective, see David M. Abshire, New Technology and Intra-Alliance Relationships: New Strengths, New Strains, Adelphi Papers, no. 199 (London: IISS, 1985).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    For the argument that there is a potential conflict between, on the one side, the major European NATO allies, who will balance cheaper options with their need for protecting their national technological base, and on the other, the smaller allies, who lack an indigenous weapons development capability and are therefore freer to shop around for the best technology at the best price, see Michael Moodie and Robert Windsor, ‘Managing Technological Change: An Alliance Imperative’, in The Alliance Papers, 12 (Washington DC: The Atlantic Council of the United States, 1986).Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Cf. Helmut Schmidt, A Grand Strategy for the West, (New Haven, Connecticut and London: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 50.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    For a similar argument and the point that ‘The smaller the proportion of its defence spending a country provides from its own sources, the smaller its total defence spending is likely to be’, see Christopher Tugendhat, Making Sense of Europe (London: Viking, 1986), p. 220.Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    For a different viewpoint according to which it is ‘one obvious conclusion … that initiatives aiming at better defense cooperation within the framework of the EC are rather unlikely to succeed’, see Peter Schmidt, ‘Europeanization of Defense: Prospects of Consensus’, EIS Journal, 6 (Bonn: European Institute for Security, 1985).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for Strategic Studies 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels J. Haagerup
  • Christian Thune

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations