The United States’ commitment to Western Europe: strategic ambiguity and political disintegration?

Abstract

During the last twenty years there has been frequent, albeit intermittent, speculation regarding the possible emergence of a West European defence identity which would give the allies a degree of self-reliance which has been lacking throughout the postwar period. Such speculation had two major sources-hopes for Europe and fears about the United States. On the one side, West European economic integration and the advances made in political cooperation not only appeared as a possible precursor to greater unity in defence, but also seemed precariously incomplete without comparable progress in this area. On the other side, discussions about a more independent Western Europe have increasingly been prompted by anxiety about the United States security guarantee. It is essential, therefore, to analyse the American commitment to Western Europe in an attempt both to identify its strengths and weaknesses and to assess its durability and resilience. Although this task is formidable, there are several key distinctions which, if made at the outset, may help to render it more manageable. The first distinction is that between the strategic dimension of the commitment (which may be inherently ambiguous) and the political commitment of the United States to underwrite West European security. Indeed, so long as the political relationship between the United States and its European allies is in good repair, even a high degree of ambiguity in the strategic guarantee will not necessarily prove inimical to the security of the allies. The difficulty is, though, that the political relationship itself has two distinct dimensions, corresponding roughly to the difference between structure and process. The first of these dimensions concerns the underlying political, economic and strategic interests which give the United States a very substantial stake in the security and integrity of Western Europe; the second concerns day to day management of diplomatic relations within the Alliance. At this second level the relationship between the United States and Western Europe has appeared increasingly fragile as the allies have confronted a wide range of highly divisive issues. The key questions, however, concern the relationship between the two levels. Are the current strains and tensions simply another example of the discord and frictions which are perhaps endemic amongst close allies? Is it the case, as one Congressional report suggested, that 'NATO controversies in general resemble the controversies which enliven democratic societies but do not undermine their legitimacy',1 or is this too sanguine a view? Do the diplomatic squabbles that seem to have become a major characteristic