Countries like Germany, France, and Spain supported this idea, and, on the
contrary, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands have strongly opposed it.
However, the evidences suggest that such this idea has an abstract nature, and
it is merely a minimal and periodic reaction by Macron and Merkel against
unilateral measures taken by the U.S. President. Meanwhile, Germany and France
spent 1.2 percent and 1.8 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on
defense spending under the NATO pact.
Trump called on German and French officials to increase this amount to 2
percent. Britain and four other countries (out of the 29 NATO member states)
have so far been willing to devote 2% of their GDP on NATO defense spending, and
24 other countries have not yet responded to this request. This is a sign of a
continuous conflict between the United States and other NATO members which will
last for a long time, even after Trump's leaving the White House!
Accordingly, we should pay attention to the thorough opposition of British
officials to the idea of forming a "True European Army", as it was previously
raised by Merkel. Speaking about the prospect of a European army, Gevin
Williamson, the British Defense Secretary, told the Daily Mail: ‘You can
absolutely rest assured that Britain will never become part of a European army
on my watch.
‘It is an absolutely crazy idea. NATO has delivered European security for the
last 70 years and we should feel very proud of it. Should we undermine that by
forming a separate military force? Absolutely not. To begin discussing a new EU
army is dangerous and undermines the security that NATO underwrites.’
He added: ‘Before Europe starts seriously planning its own army it should
adequately fund the military that has protected its borders from aggression for
70 years. Two percent of GDP should not be beyond the wit of those who have
accumulated great wealth through the protection of NATO, primarily under the
leadership of the US and UK.’
London's opposition to the U.S. policies is not new. But this approach has
intensified on the eve of the departure of Britain from the European Union. The
British officials are seeking to maintain their security relations with the
United States and the EU member states under the NATO after leaving the EU. In
such a situation, there are various questions about this recent controversy.
Can the disagreements over the formation of the European Army be considered
serious? Are the establishment of the European Army and the disputes around to
be analyzed as a symbol of a gap between in trans-Atlantic relations?
Regarding these questions, we should note that many analysts argue about the
lack of the real and necessary will among countries such as Germany and France
to achieve their security independence from the United States. This has led the
Europe to adopt a passive approach towards Washington. This passivity can be
well seen in security and economic affairs, and is also evident in different
positions taken by European leaders.
For example, shortly before, when the German Foreign Minister spoke of
establishing a Special Purpose Vehicle to preserve the nuclear deal with our
country, we saw that Merkel, emphasizing the importance of security relations
between Berlin and Washington, refused to confirm this solution. This is true
for many European leaders.
This is while many European citizens are calling for the abolition of the North
Atlantic Treaty and the creation of an independent European army. NATO has
created violence and crisis not only in the international system and the rest of
the world but also has imposed a lot of financial and structural costs on
European citizens. Currently, 26 NATO members are European countries.
Obviously, in the near future, the internal conflicts in Europe will be
strengthened over NATO. Conflicts that will initially undermine the foundations
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, at a later stage, would provide
the ground for the collapse of this structure.
Source:TehranTimes