European Military Integration Of The United States

Through initiatives such as the creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) and Partnership for Peace (PfP), and the establishment of a new Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the member countries of NATO have opened the way for new forms of partnership and cooperation with other countries within the framework of the Alliance. On 27 May 1997, in Paris, NATO and Russia signed a historic agreement on their future relations. A few days later a NATO-Ukraine Charter was initialed in Sintra, Portugal, where NATO and Partner countries met to inaugurate the EAPC. A Dialogue with the Mediterranean countries, initiated in December 1995, is also being further developed. New structures and procedures designed to further the internal adaptation of NATO are being introduced. As part of this process, the development of the European Security and Defense Identity

“I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This declaration, made by former President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947, is part of the Truman Doctrine, and was the basis for U.S. involvement in Western Europe throughout the Cold War. Although the North Atlantic Treaty, and the resulting North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was established during the Cold War “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” NATO has persisted since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. This essay will seek to examine the U.S. decision to create and participate in NATO. It will begin by providing a history of NATO and the U.S. decision to participate in NATO before considering how this decision is both an instance of continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy since former President George Washington’s Farewell Address. The essay will conclude by considering the legacy of this decision and its impact on U.S. foreign policy. While this essay will consider the period of time leading up to the formation of NATO and will briefly touch on the present day, greatest consideration will be paid to the time period immediately preceding and following the formation of NATO in 1949.

Document 1 is a chart showing “the increasing amounts of money spent on armaments from 1870 through 1914.” In the chart it is shown that Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy were spending an increased amount of money on weapons. With better weapons, countries are more prepared and even eager to fight. In addition with so many built up militaries, European countries are now nervous and built up their own military. These nervous countries may anticipate an attack from another country and would be more ready to attack in order to “defend” themselves in situations that are not very serious.

After unraveling of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, fears of war breaking out between the major powers of the United States and the Soviet Union were greatly reduced. Numerous commentaries, reports, and studies arose out of the question of what to do with the excess U.S. forces, and how to reshape them for a new era (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1996). Since the birth of the United States, the military has been an important part of the United States. The US military has been a fundamental part of foreign policy, including fostering democracy, establishing rule of law, and assisting with economic development in territories allied with the U.S. (Ludema, 2007).

Military Budget is ‘Foolish and Sustainable’”, Benjamin Friedman and Justin Logan, a researcher and a director, respectively at Cato Institute, discuss ways in which a minimization in military spending can have positive outcomes for both the U.S. and other countries. To summarize the essay, they state that the best approach is if for the U.S. to reduces its military presence in other countries. Effectively, this would prevent countries from relying on U.S. intervention and allow more countries to be dependent on themselves; additionally, it will also prevent “weaker” allied nations from gaining a false sense of emboldenment to take risks they otherwise would not against neighboring countries, which would inevitably force the U.S. to intervene. Friedman and Logan estimated that a disinclination to impose rule over these “weaker” nations will not only increase content among both nations, but it will save over $250 billion over a span of a decade and thousands of lives, and still leave a force capable of winning any ground war if needed (Friedman, B., et al., 2012, 177-191). Friedman and Logan have valid claims that agree with and support my position as to both how, and why, there should be cuts in military

Europe and the United States both have vested interest in maintaining security, supporting open trade, building upon each other’s strong economy, and reducing political barriers. Many critical shipping routes for commercial and military access are located in the region and must be available for Freedom of Navigation. EUCOM was officially approved in 1946 and established in 1952 as a unified command to preserve peace in Europe. Over the last 65 years, EUCOM provided direct support to U.S. national interest in Europe and within NATO. The U.S. is a global leader in military defense spending and global security. U.S. defense spending in relationship to GDP was 4.5% in 2012. Permanent stationing of U.S. forces abroad is expensive, but the benefits of overseas military presence help deter regional hegemony and provocative actions that lead to open conflict.

By slow stages, large and sustained military expenditures produced an enduring Military-Industrial Complex with the self-serving consequences suggested by the World War II economy and, more seriously, with the potential for perpetuating the forces of modern warfare which had provided for the initial growth of such a complex (90).

 Some argue that the current degree of integration is an economic union with an  evolving common political structure (but this is not entirely true given that all countries  do not share a common fiscal policy).   EU Objectives    Provide for free internal flow of production factors:   o Labour   o Capital   o Products    Provide protection for European industry and workers (free trade within and  protection outside countries)  o Tariffs and quotas applied to most basic commodities and services    Steel, Coal, Textiles, Agricultural Products    Banking,

In today’s trend towards a more globalized world, there are many global entities that each state chooses or chooses not to participate in. Two of the largest International Global Organizations are the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); both of which the United States of America belongs to. There are stark contrasts between how the UN and NATO are run. For this reason, the United States’ foreign policy and defense may be better served in one of these entities compared to the other. Some may argue that the United States (US) is best represented with being part of the UN because it allows the US to discuss its ideas and plans with practically all states around the globe. On the other hand, people may argue that

I have selected “Security Community Theory” to write a seminar paper. This seminar paper presents a conceptualization of NATO by exploring its role as a security community in European security. In the late 1950s, Karl Deutsch and his colleagues implicitly challenged the governing approach to security by exploring the concept of “security communities”. This was a clear break with traditional approaches to security, which emphasized the utility of military power and the inevitable nature of military threats. They gave the idea of such a community where the component states had come to reject the use or threat of force as a mechanism for resolving disputes. According to security community theory economic and cultural cooperation

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.

One of the main objectives of the European Union (EU) is the establishment of the internal market, which shall consist of “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. The internal market is based upon a customs union achieved through the abolition of the imposition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect and the prohibition of discriminatory taxes on intra-EU imports. The internal market is enhanced by the provisions on free movement of workers, freedom of establishment, free movement of services, and free movement of capital. Whereas Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide for the establishment of an EU common external tariff and the elimination of customs duties, Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (with exceptions under Article 36) go further, and prohibit quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. Taken together, Articles 28 to 32 and 34 to 36 serve to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU and to facilitate the operation of the internal market.

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.

The first evidence of the attempts to emulate the EU can be traced back to the post-Soviet Economic Union back in 1993. This project was driven by post-Soviet Russia, as an attempt to reengage with the CIS member-states as a reaction to criticism and growing domestic discontent with its role in the “near abroad”.

With the effect of the Single European Act on 1st July 1987, the emergence of European Union (EU) as a common market has essentially been created. The benefits of this act are substantial to European firms, economies, and workers. It eliminates conflicting national regulations and trade barriers, as well as offering firms opportunity to sell their goods to all other EU members (Griffin & Pustay 2005).