EU and NATO vie to set trans-Atlantic agenda

[jswordy]

BRUSSELS -- If you want to sense the health of the trans-Atlantic relationship, go no further than Brussels, home to NATO and the European Union.

The two organizations, just a few minutes' drive apart, are uniquely placed to communicate, share ideas and cooperate. After all, 19 EU countries are members of the U.S.-led military alliance, and 19 North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are members of the EU. Many of these countries have soldiers serving in Kosovo, Bosnia or Afghanistan under the flag of NATO or the EU.

On Tuesday, President George W. Bush will pay an official visit to both organizations; his tour includes the first stop by a U.S. president at the European Commission, the EU's executive branch.

Yet despite the closeness of the organizations, for several months they have barely been on speaking terms because of a dispute that may seem arcane to outsiders but that for insiders encapsulates the deep problems of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

On the face of it, the issue is about how NATO and the European Union can discuss sensitive security issues when some EU countries have not received security clearance from NATO to attend these meetings. In essence, however, diplomats say, it is about how the two organizations are vying with each other to set the agenda for the trans-Atlantic relationship.

"There is now a competition between both organizations where member countries try to play off their interests either against the EU or NATO," said a senior NATO official who, like most officials interviewed for this article, requested anonymity.

"The relationship between the EU and NATO is in flux because both are jockeying for influence on the international stage," he added. "As the EU moves slowly along the road toward doing more defense and security, it is seen as threatening to NATO. NATO knows it is no longer Washington's first port of call for its military missions. It is becoming a toolbox for the U.S."

This sense of uncertainty inside NATO over its future as the collective security organization for Europe and the United States was reinforced at last week's security conference in Munich. There, the U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said he would use "coalitions of the willing" - with or without NATO participation - depending on the operation.

The comment disappointed some, particularly the newer members of the alliance. "NATO is just one of many options Washington will consider using," said a Polish diplomat. "It's as if the U.S. is downgrading us."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/18/news/allies.html

[aneerkoinos]

1. Few realize

The strategic importance of Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Malta and Cyprus, six small countries, staying out of NATO.

There's a huge campaign, at least in Finland, by all the Bilderberg goons of political & media reactonary elite wannabe Chamberlains trying to persuade Finland to join NATO, but great majority support common EU defence and are strongly opposed to military alliance with corporate-fascist US.

The non-NATO members are anything but military heavyweights (but heavyweights in UN peacekeaping missions), but they keep pulling NATO and EU apart in the name of unity of EU, and if not else, succeed in giving Franco-German axis perfect pretext for their demands of renewing NATO structures and strengthening the European pillar.

Diplomatic sweet-talk about NATO and transatlantic allience will continue, but in common European defence the facts on the ground are changing surprisingly fast.