Commentary
Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau
{
"authors": [
"Jan Techau"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Eastern Europe",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Will Europeans Ever Agree on the Use of Military Force?
If member states want EU foreign policy to become more relevant, they cannot continue to dismiss hard power as a tool for the EU.
By Jan Techau
Published on Feb 13, 2013
Source: Policy Paper
Europeans are not per se unwilling to use force to achieve political goals. They only seem to be unwilling to do so in the framework of the EU. The perceived absence of a shared threat, the differences in strategic culture, the institutional weaknesses, the lack of resources, the lack of ambition and trust, and the fact that, with NATO, a better alternative is at hand for the management of Europe’s hard power concerns, make it unlikely that the EU will become a relevant military operator any time soon. The structural, political impediments to more cohesive defense cooperation go so deep that economic pressure alone will not be enough of an incentive to unite their military activities within CSDP.
But if Member States want EU foreign policy to become more relevant, they can’t forever dismiss hard power as a tool for the EU. A serious conversation is needed at the highest level about shared threats, interests, goals and means.
This piece originally appeared in Notre Europe's Policy Paper, No. 65.
About the Author
Jan Techau
Director, Europe Team, Eurasia Group
Techau is director with Eurasia Group's Europe team, covering Germany and European security from Berlin. Previously, he was director of Carnegie Europe.
- Can Europe Trust the United States Again?
- Pre-Reformation Europe and the Coming SchismCommentary
Jan Techau
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Iran and the New Geopolitical MomentCommentary
A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.
Michael Young
- Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring IranCommentary
Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only DomesticCommentary
The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.
Armenak Tokmajyan
- The Tragedy of Middle Eastern PoliticsArticle
The countries of the region have engaged in sustained competition that has tested their capacities and limitations, while resisting domination by rivals. Can a more stable order emerge from this maelstrom, and what would it require?
Hamza Meddeb, Mohamed Ali Adraoui
- The United States and the Emerging Security Order in Eastern SyriaPaper
As Washington reduces its presence in the country, the success of its withdrawal and continued containment of the Islamic State will hinge on adopting an approach of flexible oversight built around three priorities, as well as balancing Turkish and Israeli red lines.
Kheder Khaddour, Issam Kayssi
