WSI

As the European Union moves deeper in the business of defence and security, one challenge before member states is to find a modus vivendi with NATO. The two organisations increasingly resemble one another. After both enlarged in 2004, fully three-fourths (19 out of 25) EU members are also in NATO. Both are expanding the geographical scope of their military activities from the Balkans further afield. Both also work side by side in Darfur and support the process of bringing security and stability to Iraq.

Yet tension remains between the two institutions. Member states, too, are divided over their visions for the respective organisation’s responsibilities. Until a few years ago, the North Atlantic Alliance served essentially as an exclusive forum for European and transatlantic security cooperation. But where does the EU’s emergence as a military actor leave the alliance now and, for that matter, where do EU’s responsibilities end?

The relationship is only beginning to develop, and it is heavily shaped by politics and events. Officially, NATO and the EU have established a strategic partnership in order to work together to prevent and resolve crises in Europe. The so-called ‘Berlin Plus ’ arrangements are the cornerstone of NATO-EU co-operation in relation to crisis management but the relationship already extends beyond crisis management to areas such as the development of military capabilities.

Background

The relationship between NATO and the EU goes back to 1996, when NATO foreign ministers meeting in Berlin decided to make NATO assets and capabilities available to crisis management operations led by the Western European Union (WEU). (The term ‘Berlin Plus’ refers to this original agreement between NATO and the WEU.) At the time, the EU had not yet developed a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), and the WEU was considered both the ‘European pillar of NATO’ and ‘the defence component of the EU.’ NATO assets and capabilities (such as NATO planning facilities at SHAPE and the AWACS E-3A radar aircraft) were made available for the WEU to carry out operations involving the so-called Petersberg Tasks : humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

WEU’s role began to fade in favour of the EU after 1998, when the Franco-British Summit at St. Malo, France kicked off the process leading to ESDP. According to the Franco-British Declaration of St. Malo , “the EU must have the capacity for autonomous actions, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises...where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged”. NATO’s April 1999 Washington Summit welcomed the Franco-British initiative and declared itself ready to define and adopt the necessary arrangements for EU access to the collective assets and capabilities of the Alliance. The Washington Summit Communiqué noted that these arrangements would cover “...operations in which the Alliance as a whole is not engaged”. This early Berlin Plus arrangement included four principles:

Assured EU access to NATO operational planning (the hardware and software needed to plan a particular mission)
Availability to the EU of NATO capabilities and common assets
The option to use NATO’s European command for EU-led operations, including developing the European role of NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (DSACEUR)
Adjustments to NATO defence planning system to allow for forces to be used for EU operations as well

The sharing arrangement took further shape at the June 19, 2000 Feira European Council, when the EU, addressing concerns voiced by Turkey and the United States, established mechanisms to involve non-EU members of NATO and candidates for EU accession in EU-led operations. On Dec. 7, 2000, the EU also effectively took over the crisis management functions of the WEU with the Nice European Council conclusions. However, the ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements for EU-NATO cooperation could only be finalised on March 17, 2003, after being blocked for three years alternatively by Greece and Turkey over the degree of control by the non-EU European NATO members (including Turkey) over decision-making for EU-led operations. .

Formalisation of the NATO-EU relationship

The arrangements that make up ‘Berlin Plus’ were negotiated by NATO and the EU between December 2002 and March 2003 following the ‘NATO-EU Declaration on ESDP’ of Dec. 16, 2002. The declaration not only reaffirmed assured access by the EU to NATO’s planning capabilities for its own military operations but also reiterated the core principles of the NATO-EU strategic partnership, including ‘effective mutual consultation’ and ‘equality and due regard for the decision-making autonomy of the EU and NATO.’

The ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements specifically provide for:

A NATO-EU Security Agreement covering the exchange of classified information under reciprocal security protection rules.
Assured EU access to NATO planning capabilities for EU-led crisis management operations.
Presumed availability of NATO capabilities and common assets, such as communication units and headquarters for EU-led crisis management operations.
Procedures for release, monitoring, return and recall of NATO assets and capabilities.
Terms of reference for NATO’s DSACEUR and European command options for NATO.
NATO-EU consultation arrangements in the context of an EU-led crisis management operation making use of NATO assets and capabilities
Incorporation within NATO’s long-established defence planning system of the military needs and capabilities that may be required for EU-led military operations.

This comprehensive framework for NATO-EU relations was concluded on March 17, 2003 by the Secretary General/High Representative for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and the then-Secretary General of NATO Lord Robertson.

NATO-EU co-operation in the field

Berlin Plus framework

The formalisation of the ‘Berlin Plus’ package has made it possible for the EU to undertake crisis management operations with the support of the Alliance. To date, the EU has conducted two operations with the support of NATO:

Operation ‘Concordia’ in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (March 31, 2003- Dec. 15, 2003): taking over from NATO’s operation ‘Allied Harmony’, the EU deployed around 300 troops to provide security to EU and OSCE monitors overseeing the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which in August 2001 prevented a civil war between Slav Macedonians and ethnic Albanians. Following the provisions of ‘Berlin Plus’, the chain of command of Concordia ran from DSACEUR at SHAPE as the operation commander to an EU force commander on the ground in Skopje. An EU command element was also established at the NATO regional command in Naples (formerly AFSOUTH, currently Joint Force Command, JFC, Naples). AFSOUTH was responsible for providing extraction forces in case of need. Concordia was replaced by ‘Proxima’, an EU-led police mission with the aim to monitor, mentor and advise the country’s police thus helping to fight organised crime as well as promoting European policing standards. Proxima was completed on Dec. 14, 2005 and replaced by a 30-strong EU Police Advisory Team.

Operation ‘Althea’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dec. 2, 2004-present): following NATO’s decision at the Istanbul Summit of June 28, 2004 to terminate the Alliance’s Stabilisation Force (SFOR) operation by the end of the year, the EU started its own 7,000-strong mission in the country with the aim to implement the military aspects of the Dayton Peace Agreement and to maintain a safe and secure environment. The chain of command of Althea encompasses DSACEUR at SHAPE, JFC Naples responsible for providing extraction forces in case of need, and an EU force commander on the ground. NATO continues to maintain a small presence in the country, assisting the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in areas such as defence reform and the fight against terrorism. Both NATO and the EU support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Bosnia, including the detection of persons indicted for war crimes.

Outside the Berlin Plus framework

NATO and the EU are also working side-by-side outside ‘Berlin Plus’ in Darfur, Western Sudan in order to halt the continuing violence in the province. On April 25, 2005 the African Union (AU) requested logistical assistance from NATO and the EU to expand its peacekeeping mission in the region. Both organisations agreed to help. NATO has provided strategic airlift for AU troops and has been involved in training AU troops in strategic-level planning and operational procedures. The EU in its European Council Conclusions of May 23, 2005 has agreed to provide military planning assistance and supported civilian policing.

Both NATO and the EU, each in its own way, are working on improving security and stability of Iraq. The NATO Training Mission in Iraq has been training and mentoring mid-and-senior level Iraqi security officers inside and outside the country. The Alliance also plays a role in co-ordinating offers of equipment and training from individual NATO and partner countries. EU ‘Just Lex’ is the first ever integrated civilian mission within the framework of ESDP and aims to strengthen the criminal justice system in Iraq by training 770 senior Iraqi officials within EU.

NATO-EU co-operation in Brussels

NATO and EU meet at the level of foreign ministers twice a year, at Ambassadors level (the North Atlantic Council with the Political and Security Committee) a minimum of three times per semester, and at the level of the Military Committee twice every semester. The committees meet on a regular basis and staffs interact routinely.

On the basis of a document approved by the European Council in December 2003, “European Defence: NATO/EU Consultations, Planning and Operations, ” the EU set up in 2005 a permanent cell at SHAPE and NATO established permanent liaison arrangements with the EU Military Staff (EUMS). These arrangements aim to facilitate NATO-EU co-operation at the operational level.

Additionally, an EU civil-military cell was established, after considerable controversy (see below), within the EUMS. Its task is to carry out early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning. The Council of the EU may draw on the expertise of the cell when a joint civil-military response is required and no national HQ can be identified. The cell has the capacity to rapidly set up an operation centre, augmented by seconded officers from member states.

In July 2003, NATO and the EU agreed a ‘Concerted Approach for the Western Balkans ’, which includes core areas of co-operation (such as defence and security sector reform and strengthening the rule of law) and emphasises the common vision and determination that both organisations share to bring stability to the region.

The NATO-EU capability group, which was established in May 2003, focuses on ensuring the coherent, transparent and mutually reinforcing development of military capabilities common to both organisations. NATO and the EU are currently trying to fill their capabilities gaps with the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) and the European Capability Action Plan (ECAP), respectively. The PCC and ECAP co-operate in six areas: defences against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, medical, unmanned aerial vehicles, strategic air and sea lift and air-to-air refuelling.

The two organisations have also exchanged information on issues such as counterterrorism and WMD proliferation and on their respective activities in civil emergency planning. The establishment of the European Defence Agency in 2004, which works on capabilities development for ESDP, armaments co-operation, research and technology and on the development of a European defence equipment market, opened another channel of contact between NATO and the EU. NATO is considered one of the Agency’s key stakeholders.

Key issues in the NATO-EU debate

Who does what?
From an operational point of view, when NATO and the EU are both involved on the ground, a clear division of tasks has to be established in order to prevent the two organisations stepping on each other’s toes and sending a message of confusion to the local population. This proved a challenge during talks on launching EU operation ‘Althea’ in Bosnia, which works alongside NATO HQ in Sarajevo. Likewise, co-ordinating NATO and EU assistance to the African Union in Darfur proved to be a complex political process with both organisations striving to establish primacy as a provider of security to Africa.

The controversy has been further rekindled by the EU’s development of the Battle Groups (BGs) concept and the parallel work of the Alliance on the NATO Response Force (NRF). A BG consists of highly trained, battalion–size formation (1,500 troops each). They are to be capable of deployment in as little as 15 days and equipped to remain in the area independently for at least 30 days. BGs are intended to undertake operations in distant crises areas mostly – but not exclusively – under a UN mandate, and to conduct combat missions in an extremely hostile environment (e.g. mountains, desert and jungle). The NRF, which is set to reach full operational capability in October 2006, is made up of 21,000 troops deployable within 5 to 30 days and equipped with high-tech weapons and defences against WMD. Non-combatant evacuation operations, humanitarian crises, crisis response including peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, and embargo operations are identified as potential missions for the NRF. However, both NATO and the EU draw on the same forces from the member states’ militaries. In practice, this puts a heavy premium on ensuring that the BGs and the NRF are mutually coherent and complementary. Mechanisms for troops rotation have yet to be worked out by the NATO-EU capability group.

Turkish concerns
Despite the finalisation of the ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements in 2003, Turkish concerns still prevent broad strategic discussions between NATO and the EU beyond practical co-operation in crisis management. Turkey objects to expanding formal cooperation on the grounds that EU members Cyprus and Malta lack a security arrangement with NATO. The EU for its part refused to accept Turkey’s demand that these two countries be excluded from NATO-EU strategic discussions. The result is that talks on issues like terrorism and Darfur do not take place at all. The resolution to the impasse seems distant as long as Cyprus remains a divided island with Turkey in control of its northern side.

EU Operational Planning Capability
The birth of the EU civil-military cell was a difficult one with passions flaring on both sides of the Atlantic. The agreement on the cell is a compromise solution, which did not really satisfy any of the interested sides. The controversy was triggered in April 2003 when Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg, in the midst of the Iraq war, called for an independent EU operational headquarters to be set up in the Brussels suburb of Tervuren. The the then U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns called the proposal “the greatest threat to NATO’ while Britain said that it would block anything that would undermine NATO. The eventual agreement on the EU civil-military cell stipulates that it will be used only “where NATO as a whole is not engaged” and only after no EU member state stepped forward to offer its national HQ for planning purposes.

Timeline

April 25, 2005 – African Union requests NATO and EU logistical support in Darfur
March 7, 2005 – Council Joint Action on the EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq
Dec. 2, 2004 – Beginning of EU operation ‘Althea’ in Bosnia
June 28-29, 2004 – NATO Istanbul Summit, decision to terminate SFOR operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the end of 2004 and agreement to assist Iraq with the training of its security forces
Nov. 19-25, 2003 – First joint NATO-EU crisis management exercise based on the ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements
July 29, 2003 – Development of a common EU-NATO strategy for the Western Balkans
May 19, 2003 – First meeting of the NATO-EU capability group

March 31, 2003 – Transition from the NATO-led operation ‘Allied Harmony’ to the EU-led operation ‘Concordia’ in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

March 17, 2003 – Agreement on a set of key documents known as the ‘Berlin Plus’ package
March 14, 2003 – Entry into force of a NATO-EU Security Agreement
Dec. 16, 2002 - EU-NATO Declaration on ESDP
Jan. 24, 2001 – Beginning of institutionalised relations between NATO and the EU with the establishment of joint meetings, including at ministerial and ambassadorial level
December 2000 – Nice European Council
June 2000 – Feira European Council
December 1999 – Helsinki European
June 1999 – Cologne European Council
April 24, 1999 – NATO Washington Summit
Dec. 3-4, 1998 – Franco-British Joint Declaration on European Defence
July 3-4, 1996 – NATO ministerial meeting in Berlin puts NATO assets at WEU disposal

Sources for further reading