Transatlantic Security Community Research Articles

Covid-19 pasekmės transatlantinio saugumo bendruomenei

Although there were many disagreements in transatlantic relations before the COVIC-19, the pandemic accelerated tensions in transatlantic relations even more. The inauguration of the new US president Joe Biden, however, has been perceived as a new chapter in transatlantic relations. The paper aims to assess the COVID-19 pandemic implications to transatlantic relations and answer the question of whether the pandemic has strengthened or weakened the transatlantic security community? The paper stems from the idea that transatlantic countries compose a transatlantic security community. It examines the COVID-19 implications to several tiers of features that should be present in every security community: namely, implications to the perception of threats, patterns of communication and policy coordination, as well as to institutional framework. The paper argues that COVID-19 has not transformed the transatlantic security community; however, it highlighted certain problematic aspects of transatlantic relations.

A Weakening Transatlantic Relationship? Redefining the EU–US Security and Defence Cooperation

The aim of this article is to discuss how a weakening transatlantic relationship influences European defence cooperation and integration. It also asks how these observed patterns of weakening EU–US relations can be explained and what the consequences might be for the EU’s efforts to build a stronger and more coherent security and defence policy. Building upon a “comprehensive neo-functionalist” approach first coined by the Norwegian scholar Martin Sæter, European security and defence policy should be seen as part of an externalisation of EU integration as a response to weakening transatlantic relations. The debate on European “strategic autonomy,” the Strategic Compass, and the European “defence package” should therefore be considered as part of such an externalisation process of actively influencing and reshaping the transatlantic relationship. When analysing European security and defence, the article also shows that it is misleading to regard European integration as something to be subordinated to NATO. Nevertheless, a European security deficit does exist due to differing perspectives among member states on how the EU process should relate to NATO. The article, therefore, concludes that strategic autonomy can only be developed with close EU–NATO cooperation. Furthermore, a more multipolar world order where the EU no longer can rely upon a transatlantic security community to the same extent as before challenges the EU’s role as a defender of multilateralism and poses new challenges to the EU’s common foreign and security policy.

Differentiated Integration and Europe’s Global Role: A Conceptual Framework

In a time of global challenges, rising geopolitical tensions and a weakening of the traditional trans-Atlantic security community, we can expect pressures for Europe to play a more important role in the world. Various initiatives have been taken to strengthen the role of the European Union (EU), but there are also tendencies towards a more complex European governance structure in the making, characterized by a combination of both EU and non-EU (but still European) initiatives. This introductory article presents a framework for studying a European role that includes initiatives taken within and outside the EU framework, but closely interlinked, indicating that the concept of differentiated integration (DI) may help to clarify Europe’s role in a changing and volatile global context. Differentiated Integration, Disintegration, EU as a global actor, EU foreign security and defence policy

NATO: Building A Security Community in the Face of Covid-19 Pandemic

Purpose: NATO has been built upon political, economic, and military issues. Over the years, due to the intensive development of medicine, public debate has marginalised public health threats as aspect of international security. Our goal was to find out whether the transatlantic security community will rise to the challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/Methodology/Approach: This article attempts to answer the above question through theoretical analysis of the functioning of NATO as a security community as well as through the analysis of actions taken by the Alliance to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: The hypothesis we were able to confirm is, that the current pandemic is a chance for the Alliance – it can play a greater role in the community than it has done so far. Practical Implications: Our research shows gaps in NATO's crisis management system and the areas that need to be improved. Originality/value: We see our paper as an innovative one, because no one has researched NATO's crisis management mechanisms on the example of a specific, non-military crisis.

NATO enlargement and the failure of the cooperative security mindset

In the 1990s and 2000s, as NATO enlargement became a reality, scholars commented on the socializing influence of NATO, predicting a transformation of security identities. Was NATO successful in institutionalizing self-restraint and cooperative security among its new members and partners? We contend that it was successful so long as threats to transatlantic security remained low. When states perceive that the threat is increasing, however, more traditional conceptions of national identity displace the cooperative security model. While a great deal of institutional learning happened through the process of NATO accession and partnership building in the past two decades, the socialization process stopped short of transforming new members’ security mindsets. Our main contribution, then, is to provide an accurate picture of NATO’s influence in terms of reshaping the transatlantic security community and to analyze the different versions of NATO that were proposed in the post-Cold War era.

Defense planning in the fog of peace: the transatlantic currency conversion conundrum

ABSTRACTResource allocation to and within defense budgets is grand strategy. NATO and the EU coordinate defense planning and encourage fair burden-sharing among their members. We analyze the effect of agreed planning processes, namely the “NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP)” on the conversion of political will to resources and then to capabilities development across the transatlantic security community. In a “fog of peace” featuring diverse threats, and in which allies may disagree on strategic rivals and sources of risk, national and regional political economies shape strategy, not the other way around.

Europe’s Struggle in the Fraying Transatlantic Order

Donald Trump’s open espousal of an anti-EU view indicates his intent to undermine the long-standing transatlantic security community.

Considerations on Transatlantic Security

Abstract The study focuses on the security of the transatlantic space and the role played by its various components in ensuring the stability, security and development of the countries in this space. The role played by the North Atlantic Alliance in the transatlantic space and beyond, as well as contributing to securing the European continent, is also avoided. At the same time, in order to complete the picture of the transatlantic relations, it is necessary to mention the way in which Russia is present in the international relations of South-eastern Europe. The results of this theoretical approach can contribute to creating an overall image of the transatlantic security community and identifying the transatlantic space from a static and dynamic point of view.

Arms Without Influence? Spatial Distribution of Defense Industrial Activity, Transatlantic Burden Sharing, and Strategy

Resource allocation is a grand strategic choice; strategic autonomy requires resources and defense industrial autonomy. The allocation of resources and the sharing of defense burdens among members of the transatlantic security community is thus a fundamental component of the liberal international order. While economists have shed much light on cross-country variation in burden-sharing behavior, only qualitative work in the security studies field has addressed the nature of contributions to shared priorities, and neither field has adequately addressed sources of within-country variation, which is of primary interest to policy-makers aiming to mitigate burden-shifting tendencies in alliances. I find the larger the weight of arms production is in its national economy, the more a state spends on shared transatlantic priorities. This finding suggests that the strategic effects of defense industrial policy, and particularly the distribution of defense industries across Europe, extend beyond the production of defense articles and into the politics of burden sharing.

Defence Planning in the Fog of Peace: The Transatlantic Currency Conversion Conundrum

Resource allocation to and within defense budgets is grand strategy. NATO and the EU coordinate defense planning and encourage fair burden-sharing among their members. We analyse the effect of agreed planning processes, namely the ‘NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP)’ on the conversion of political will to resources and then to capabilities development across the transatlantic security community, adding to conversations on hierarchy and order in international politics. In a ‘fog of peace’ featuring diverse threats, and in which allies may disagree on strategic rivals and sources of risk, national and regional political economies shape strategy, not the other way around.

Appropriately Upset? A Methodological Framework for Tracing the Emotion Norms of the Transatlantic Security Community

Emotions have been found to underpin the moral hierarchy of values and beliefs within and among groups by restraining undesirable attitudes and behavior. As such, emotions serve as potential indicators for analyzing whether or not certain norms are still deemed relevant. As Jon Mercer puts it: “One way to test for the presence of norms is to look for emotion”. While the literature in International Relations (IR) generally accepts the emotional underpinnings of norms, there has been strikingly little elaboration of appropriate methods and criteria for studying the link between emotion and norms in IR. In this contribution, I suggest that socialization processes in a security community involve the internalization of appropriate rules of emotional expression or, in short, emotion norms. I propose that emotion norms can be historically traced via the emotional vocabulary and expressive rules derived from the production of texts. To do this, I searched for documents and treaties that serve as canonical texts for the collective self-conception and self-image of the transatlantic security community. As I hope to show, in these texts one can find substantial evidence of emotion norms, which designates these documents as ‘emotional landmarks’ that embody the emotional construction of the transatlantic emotional (security) community.

Spory w relacjach transatlantyckich

The Transatlantic Security Community, the mainstay of which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has passed through a crisis repeatedly. At the beginning of the XXIst century the actions of the American Administration and a sceptical attitude of the Europeans towards the American war against terrorism caused an open conflict between the allies from across the ocean. However, the tensions between military and political concepts of NATO have been increasing from the 1960’s. In the article entitled Disputes in transatlantic relations the most significant crises are raised, including the time of cold war, the 1990’s and the beginning of the XXIst century, when it came to a breach of Alliance which expressed the variable international conditions.

“Guardian of the international order”? NATO’s contested identity, the discourses of Secretaries General, and the Ukraine crisis

ABSTRACTThis article examines the role of NATO Secretaries General within the transatlantic security community in the wake of the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Drawing on a social constructivist perspective, the comparative discourse analysis of Rasmussen and Stoltenberg offers important insights regarding the role of a non-governmental actor in transatlantic relations. So far, research on transatlantic relations rarely investigated the discourses of NATO Secretaries General. The analysis shows that despite increased attention toward collective defence, both Secretaries General argued for an alliance, which is engaged not only in regional but also global affairs. As Eastern European NATO allies, especially Poland and the Baltic states, embrace divisive notions of the alliance’s self and perceived threats, the security community’s collective identity remains contested.

Transatlantic democracy promotion: cooperation in crisis

Can we talk about transatlantic democracy promotion? By addressing this issue from the perspective of transatlantic security communities, this article accepts that there are areas of convergence between the EU and the USA which might over time lead to a meaningful transatlantic partnership. But joint transatlantic democracy promotion is still only embryonic and only operates when both parties are faced with a crisis. Thus, while we can still speak of a transatlantic security community, a transatlantic democracy promotion community has yet to come into being and there is little indication that it will do so in the future.

Comeback of the transatlantic security community? Comparative securitisation in the Crimea crisis

ABSTRACTAs previous crises such as Libya and Iraq have shown, the transatlantic community is suffering from a deficient common security identity. Comparing the US, French, German, and British reactions to the Russian annexation of Crimea discloses whether the value-based foundations of the transatlantic security community are eroding. The securitisation model seems well-suited to complement the theory of security communities by offering analytical criteria for the comparison. Who securitised what, when, and how in early 2014? The analysis proposes securitisation as a promising research tool for foreign policy comparisons and reveals to what extent the transatlantic security community still exists.

European defence research in crisis? The way towards strategic autonomy

Defence research, in the form of both research and development (R&D) and research and technology (R&T), are important factors in achieving long-term European strategic autonomy. The present paper analyses this debate from a comparative perspective. The first part discusses the inputs provided by the group of personalities report from February 2016 on defence related R&T research, and the corresponding report by the European Parliament (EP) from March 2016 on the future of EU defence research. In the second part, I compare the conclusions drawn in these two reports with defence research developments in China and Russia respectively. By comparing defence research activities in these two non-western states with the European efforts to establish a European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB) we will be in a better position to answer questions such as: is European defence research in a state of emergency? And, which means should the EU develop so as to mitigate the downward trend in European defence research? An important input to this comparative analysis is the US Defense Innovation Initiative (DII). As this paper stresses, priority given to European defence research is necessary both to cover one’s own defence needs, but also to preserve and further develop the transatlantic security community as well.

On the Transatlantic Edge

Since the 1990s, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland have worked as NATO members or partners, participating in expeditionary operations and playing political leadership roles in the transatlantic security community. Today, however, the Nordic-Baltic security environment is changing rapidly, a trend only further accelerated by the Ukraine crisis. Magnus Nordenman argues that the emerging strategic environment will force the Nordic nations to focus on challenges closer to home, and that their current defence constructs will be challenged if they are not further refined and if co-operation is not extended.

Transatlantic Relations and Lithuania: Unfinished Issues of Security

The present article deals with the problem, often discussed in the public sphere, of the decreased attention that the USA gives to Lithuania and to the region of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) on the whole, discusses the changing international environment, USA’s “pivot to Asia” and possible changes in the US foreign policy during the time of President Obama’s second term of office. The article states that Lithuania, being interested in the vitality of transatlantic relations, should consider the issue of “winning back” the USA’s attention to the region and to Europe as a whole, by assessing the issues of security to be solved. The research shows that even with a decade of its membership in Euro-Atlantic structures, Lithuania has not been fully integrated into the transatlantic security community. On the basis of a theoretical perspective of a small state and neoclassical realism, the article deals with the external and internal factors explaining the state’s foreign policy, analyzes Lithuania’s possible behavior in an international space, including the North Atlantic Alliance. In recent years NATO has been confronted not only with the global threats of the 21st century but also with a “burden share” problem that is becoming ever more acute. The situation of Lithuania’s security as to the guarantees of collective defense provided by the Alliance is assessed as the best one since the restoration of Independence; however, this does not release it from the necessity to widely develop its own defense capacities. Even though Europe constantly underlines the importance of transatlantic relations and intensive economic-trade relations with the USA, it has not developed a common attitude to its relations with the USA. Taking into consideration the present-day challenges, Europe needs a more global, more strategic attitude.

The Future of the Transatlantic Security Relationship

ABSTRACT Globalization, the financial crisis, and the U.S. pivot to Asia are profoundly changing the transatlantic security relationship. Some observers believe that these developments call for a new transatlantic bargain based on a Europe that would take greater responsibility for upholding security and stability in Europe and along its periphery. However, low European defense budgets and numerous political differences among European nations make such a bargain appear unlikely. At the same time, while the United States will reduce its military footprint in Europe in the years ahead, it will still want to remain a “European power.” Hence, the most likely outcome of current developments will be a transatlantic security community with lower ambitions, yet with a continuously solid institutional relationship based on a reformed North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Counterterrorism cooperation in the transatlantic security community

While the notion of a European security community encounters little resistance in the security community literature, the transatlantic security community, comprised of the European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA), has suffered routine criticism in the aftermath of 9/11. This article seeks to lend empirical support to the claim that the transatlantic security community is alive and well, though not without its political arrhythmias. Drawing on the idea that community membership enhances norm convergence, this article examines the process of norm convergence in EU–US counterterrorism cooperation. We argue that the recent EU–US agreements on Passenger Name Records and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme represent a form of cooperation, that is, the convergence of values, which is essential for late-stage security community integration. Detainee practices, however, represent a harder case for the transatlantic security community. Despite these difficulties, we argue that this controversy does not preclude a priori the possibility of agreement. Although these transatlantic differences might shake the foundations of the EU security community, we argue that the current controversies provide an opportunity for the EU to reaffirm its commitment to its values, thus reinforcing its foundations as an independent security community. This account of cooperation, political disagreement notwithstanding, upsets the Kaganian account of transatlantic relations.