Should European Union develop its own deterrent?

Résumé du document

During the Cold War, deterrence was at the core of international foreign policy having a bilateral symmetry. With the end of the Cold War the realm of nuclear issues has undergone a substantial change and with emerging security challenges and an asymmetry of international actors. Even if underlying, the topic of deterrence resurfaces on the European stage, due to EU integration and also in regards to the hypothesis of development of a common deterrent for the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty that came into force in December 2009 envisions an even closer interconnection of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The European Union needs to reflect upon the future of a common defense and the subject of a common European deterrent. Due to the fact that two of the EU member states, France and Great Britain have nuclear weapons the question of whether these should be incorporated into the new defense arrangements may arise.

Some people may argue that as for the possible implementation of a common EU deterrence, a legal status for a common European deterrence to some extent might be tangible under certain conditions. Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states that "each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Extraits

[...] Web http://en.oboulo.com be no situation in which the vital interests of either of our two nations could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened. As for Europe, it is a fact: By their very existence, French nuclear forces are a key element in Europe's security. Any aggressor who might consider challenging it must be mindful of this. I propose to engage those European partners who would so wish in an open dialogue on the role of deterrence and its contribution to our common security. Our commitment to the security of our European partners is the natural expression of our ever-closer union. [...]

[...] Also taking pragmatic reasons into account inclduing huge budget cuts due to the financial crisis, the economic argument behind a joint deterrence prevails. There could be a concerted deterrence and the EU deterrence today is the joint deterrence by UK and France that offer bilateral coverage, but also the extended deterrence by NATO. The British and the French have taken on the defense of Europe through NATO as well. President Sarkozy mentioned that for the Atlantic Alliance, its security is also based on nuclear deterrence. [...]

[...] The current US President Barack http://en.oboulo.com Obama set a strong long-term goal for the global eradication of nuclear weapons or “Global Zero”. Given the fact that the Cold War deterrence is out of date and no longer at the core of US foreign policy, the US dedication to nuclear questions in Europe may logically diminish. This would lead to an imbalance and scarcity of security in Europe while facing various nuclear powers in the East. In order to avoid this, the EU needs to get more actively involved in nuclear independency in order to face emergencies and threats. [...]

[...] The role of the international community Argument European Union Self-Reliance EU deterrence is needed because one could argue that there is an uncertainty issue about the credibility of France and Britain covering all 27 EU member states within their protective deterrence. This is in particular addressing EU member states that are not member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization like Malta, Cypress, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Austria for example. Would France and Britain defend those countries at their own endangerment? Hypothetically assuming that Sweden would face a potential nuclear conflict by China for example, what is the deterrence situation? Who were to be taking responsibility? Even if the situation is highly unlikely this needs to be critically questioned. [...]

[...] In general this means that the European Nuclear policy has gotten closer in regards to many factors besides the European deterrence debate. Joint statements are conducted at any NPT conference and the commitment in regards to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapon Convention, Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fostering the IAEA and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, Nuclear Terrorism Convention are increasing.5 It is also not to be underestimated that EU has a close nuclear policy in terms of diplomacy as it holds a united front on issues regarding proliferation of Iran. [...]