The Körber Policy Game 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.
Recent 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 'take their fate into their own hands' are so far lacking sufficient progress.
Against this backdrop, the Körber Policy Game brought 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.
How 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?
The Körber Policy Game is based on the idea of projecting current foreign and security policy trends into a future scenario – 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.
The discussions took place in a confidential setting in Berlin in July 2019. This report summarises the insights and positions generated by the Körber Policy Game and 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.
Executive Summary
Transatlantic relations: The Körber Policy Game demonstrated that a transactional relationship with the US could become the 'new normal' in US–European 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 'fair deal' addressing both defence and trade issues.
Divided Europe: 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’s ability to organise collective defence were tempted to conclude bilateral arrangements with the US, leading to a 'bilateralisation' of security and defence. For Europeans without nuclear capabilities, the scenario presented an existential security threat.
Wait and see: During the Körber Policy Game, 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.
Article 5 after US withdrawal: 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.
Nuclear deterrence: 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.
Choice of institutional framework: 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.
UK matters: A post-Brexit UK would consider itself a leading actor in European security, willing and capable of shaping Europe’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.
Russian offers rejected: 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.
European military capabilities: 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment