|
\u003cp style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRecent developments in transatlantic relations have reignited the debate about the need for Europeans to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Yet, efforts by European leaders to substantiate the general commitment to \u0027take their fate into their own hands\u0027 are so far lacking sufficient progress.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgainst this backdrop, the \u003cem\u003e\u003ca href=\u0022https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/en/koerber-policy-game\u0022\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game\u003c/a\u003e \u003c/em\u003ebrought together a high-level group of senior experts and government officials from France, Germany, Poland, the UK and the US to address a fictional scenario that involves a US withdrawal from NATO, followed by multiple crises in Europe.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHow will Europeans organise their security and defence if the US withdraws from NATO? To what extent will future European security be based on mutual solidarity, ad-hoc coalitions or a bilateralisation of relations with the US? Which interests would the respective European governments regard as vital and non-negotiable? What role would the US play in European security after the withdrawal?\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game \u003c/em\u003eis based on the idea of projecting current foreign and security policy trends into a future scenario \u0026ndash; seeking to develop a deeper understanding of the interests and priorities of different actors as well as possible policy options. The starting point is a short to medium-term scenario. Participants are part of country teams and assume the role of advisers to their respective governments.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe discussions took place in a confidential setting in Berlin in July 2019. This report summarises the insights and positions generated by the \u003cem\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game \u003c/em\u003eand was compiled in cooperation with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. We would like to thank Douglas Barrie and James Hackett for their valuable input and advice in drafting the scenario.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4 style=\u0022text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0pt;\u0022\u003eExecutive Summary\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTransatlantic relations:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The \u003cem\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game \u003c/em\u003edemonstrated that a transactional relationship with the US could become the \u0027new normal\u0027 in US\u003cspan style=\u0022text-align: justify; color: rgb(19, 19, 19); letter-spacing: normal; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);\u0022\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/span\u003eEuropean relations, with the US slowly drifting out of the European strategic sphere. Whereas Europeans hoped for a continued strategic US interest in Europe and a value-based partnership, the US team focused primarily on a \u0027fair deal\u0027 addressing both defence and trade issues.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDivided Europe:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Without US security guarantees, Europeans faced a serious risk of splitting into different camps. Especially those countries that felt most vulnerable and did not trust Europe\u0026rsquo;s ability to organise collective defence were tempted to conclude bilateral arrangements with the US, leading to a \u0027bilateralisation\u0027 of security and defence. For Europeans without nuclear capabilities, the scenario presented an existential security threat.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWait and see:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e During the \u003cem\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game\u003c/em\u003e, a significant deterioration of the security situation in Southern and Eastern Europe had to take place before Europeans were willing to take proactive steps in security and defence. At first, most teams focused on persuading the US to return to NATO, signalling a willingness for concessions that were unthinkable before.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArticle 5 after US withdrawal:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Most teams anticipated that remaining NATO member states would struggle to agree on the invocation of Article 5 in a grey-zone scenario, even when a NATO member state was threatened. This raises serious questions about the credibility of Article 5 and the mutual defence commitment following a US withdrawal from NATO.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNuclear deterrence:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e European nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities was considered a possibility after a US withdrawal, yet this would entail significant costs. The burden-sharing debate would return to Europe, especially to Germany. Failing this, some teams anticipated the proliferation of nuclear weapons among Europeans.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoice of institutional framework:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Most European teams were adamant that the NATO command structure should be maintained after a US withdrawal. The French team preferred an EU-centred collective defence structure in the long term, but this position was met with scepticism especially from the British and Polish side.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUK matters:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e A post-Brexit UK would consider itself a leading actor in European security, willing and capable of shaping Europe\u0026rsquo;s future security architecture. Given its significant defence capabilities, the UK team saw its country in a powerful negotiating position and was sceptical of French-German leadership on defence issues.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRussian offers rejected:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Throughout the policy game, all teams consistently rejected Russian offers for conflict resolution in exchange for concessions on European security. This demonstrates that Russia was not considered a credible security provider in Europe.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli style=\u0022text-align: left;\u0022\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean military capabilities:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Shortfalls in European military capabilities, especially in air and missile defence, were acknowledged as serious risks in a short-term crisis scenario. Given that filling these gaps would require long-term investment, Europe would likely remain vulnerable for years to come in such a scenario.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","className":"richtext reading--content font-secondary"}), document.getElementById("react_qLWA720ke0SAeSDH1JZA"))});
\u003cp style=\"text-align: left; margin-bottom: 5pt;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eK\u0026ouml;rber Policy Game\u003c/em\u003e brought together a high-level group of senior experts and government officials to address a fictional scenario that involves a US withdrawal from NATO followed by multiple crises in Europe.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e
|
