Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Europe's Choice: Diplomacy or War"

September 14, 2011 | 4 comments | Print | E-Mail Your Opinion

Europe's Choice: Diplomacy or War

Aleksandr Blagin: To improve its collective defense capabilities and reduce wasteful spending, Europe should pursue three paths: refuse expensive overseas expeditions, use diplomatic policy and economic sanctions before using force, and develop new partnerships in conflict-prone regions.

he volatility of the global economy since 2008 has altered the dynamics of international political relations and heightened global security threats. Virtually every EU state has had to tighten its budgetary belt. At the same time, the world has undergone momentous changes characterized by revolutions, terrorist attacks and civil wars across the globe.

In this uncertain climate, how can European states maintain a high level of national security in conditions that require cutting costs? How can European defense ministries effectively and efficiently protect their citizens from a broad range of modern threats? There are several ways to solve this complex problem – or at least, to reduce unfounded costs.

First, EU and NATO countries should reduce the number of costly expeditions they undertake. The decision this year to intervene in Libya, where NATO poured in millions of dollars each day, is a case in point. The results of such expeditions do not justify the costs. The two interventions that NATO has undertaken – Kosovo in 1999 and Libya in 2011 – have been heavily criticized not only for their human and financial toll, but also for their failure to bring about lasting, positive change. As its overreliance on the United States in Libya has made clear, NATO is ill-equipped to take on such massive overseas operations, especially in an era of tight budgetary constraints. The Alliance should severely limit the criteria it uses to justify any future military interventions abroad.

The second way to achieve “security despite austerity” is to find diplomatic and economic resolutions to conflict situations. Refusal to conduct direct combat operations in favor of a frank discussion of problems at the round table will reduce defense spending significantly. The question raised here, naturally, is whether this will delay the negotiating process, deepen potential crises and lead to the escalation of a conflict. This case requires tough diplomacy and clear and justified use of economic sanctions.

Sanctions are a proven method of achieving what military means often cannot. To pick one of many examples, during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War of 1935-36, one of the greatest hindrances to Mussolini’s Italy was the League of Nations’ imposition of heavy economic sanctions in the form of blockades on oil, coal, metal and other vital materials. In hindsight, if the sanctions had been levied earlier, Italian military operations in Ethiopia may never have even begun. Similarly, tougher economic sanctions enacted earlier on Libya may have weakened Gaddafi’s army effectively enough to render a full-fledged NATO intervention unnecessary, saving lives and billions of dollars.

Finally, to balance the costs of security with the protection of citizens, EU and NATO members should engage in dialogue and build new alliances with non-NATO states. Engaging with partner states would help reduce tensions in regions prone to conflict and limit potential threats through the close cooperation of national militaries. This partnership should extend to all levels of government, from heads of state to ministers and local specialists. NATO maintains an ongoing dialogue with the Arab League and with Russia (where Russia allows ISAF forces and equipment through its territory en route to Afghanistan), but these should be deepened and expanded to other states in conflict-prone regions. NATO and its partners should take part in regularly occurring summits and conferences to maintain open dialogue and effectively transform well-meaning words into concrete actions.

These are just three recommendations for how European states can improve security as funds allocated to defense ministries are reduced. Europe must let diplomacy play a greater role in resolving international conflicts and administer a stricter policy of economic sanctions against states posing an international threat, as well as a more thorough assessment of the cost-effectiveness of combat operations and the results of those operations.

Nevertheless, some question remain: could these relatively restrained military policies survive an often arduous diplomatic process with partner states that do not always see eye-to-eye? And should NATO states resist future military involvement as a rule, even in the face of a human rights disaster like the one that provoked NATO to intervene in Benghazi? Only one thing is certain: under the current economic conditions, the Alliance cannot afford its emphasis on ambitious, interventionist hard power that has guided its external relations to this point.

Aleksandr Blagin graduated from Yaroslavl State University in Russia with an emphasis in the Contemporary History of Europe and North America. He is currently earning his postgraduate degree in the field of Cold War History.

Related articles from Atlantic Community's "Security Despite Austerity" theme week:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

September 14, 2011

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I like this comment! What's this?

I argued previously, it is time to begin looking at a regional architecture for security with the possibility of things like a renewed South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO), a quadrilateral commission with the U.S., Japan, India and China.

Meanwhile, the new Gulf Security regime backed by the Saudis should be backed by America.

Meanwhile NATO remains, as this author intimates, focused at home and not worry about peripheral engagements like Libya, irrespective of its outcome (which is still, ultimately far from clear).

September 15, 2011

Yan Matusevich, Bard College, Silver Contributor (26)

I like this comment! What's this?

Reducing or altogether halting Europe’s overseas operations would certainly reduce defense costs. In times of economic austerity, proposals to focus on national defense rather than global military missions are logical. When every penny counts, the defense budget is obviously a very good place to start. It remains to be seen, however, whether the costs of getting involved in Libya outweigh the benefits of getting rid of the Gaddafi regime.

More diplomacy instead military involvement is a policy recommendation virtually every world leader is willing to stand by, in theory. In cases of severe human rights abuses and military conflict, however, diplomacy alone cannot usually prevent bloodshed. Using economic sanctions as the main mechanism for dealing with international threats has not been a very fruitful strategy. The example used in the article of the Second Italo-Ethiopian is too obscure and does not provide significant evidence for the benefits of economic sanctions. Sanctions against countries such as Syria, Iran, Belarus and North Korea have not succeeded in unseating authoritarian regimes in these respective countries. As experience shows, economic sanctions have the tendency of harming the civilian population, while the political leaders find ways around economic embargoes by reaching out to other allies and partners. Just recently, news has come out of Belarus, for example, helping Iran avoid UN sanctions.

Therefore as essential as cutting European defense budgets really is, NATO cannot realistically abandon its global role in the face of violence and civil unrest. Perhaps it is possible to cut unessential defense spending and focus on the most important regions.

September 18, 2011

Kazimierz Wiesak, Pennsylvania State University, Silver Contributor (73)

I like this comment! What's this?

@ Yan,

"NATO cannot realistically abandon its global role in the face of violence and civil unrest."
------------
There was no violance and civil unrest in Iraq before American invasion.
There was no violance and civil unrest in Afganistan before NATO invasion (leaving causes for that invasion aside).
There has been a lot of violence and civil unrest in Congo (few millions killed) but NATO didn't invade that country.

Conclusion: USA invades countries it wants to conquer, not countries where there is violance and civil unrest. That's the way all empires behaved throughout human history. Actually, USA is a kind of "mild empire" acting according to the principle:

By economic means if possible, by military means only if necessary.

But evidently USA expects such necessities, otherwise they would not spend so much money on military. In spite of tremendous budget deficits there is barely any indication to safe on military spending.

September 20, 2011

Aleksandr Blagin, Yaroslavl State University, (10)

I like this comment! What's this?

"economic sanctions have the tendency of harming the civilian population, while the political leaders find ways around economic embargoes by reaching out to other allies and partners"
--------------
Sometimes we have only two positions to resolve a problem: 1) to take a "military " way, organize invasion and spend a lot of budget money or 2) to use diplomatic methods and economize every penny. Of couse, the second way is more difficult and more it needs to take a lot of time, but in Libya, in Iraq there were no any kinds of cruel violence before NATO's invasion. Economic sanctions are more acceptable way to save own budget, to protect population, to avoid of violance and destruction.