Two Cheers for the Center for American Progress ’ Report on EU Defense

Justin LoganIn U.S. foreign policy debates, Europe gets short shrift. Not without justification, the continent is seen as mostly at peace, a  place where people in well‐​tailored suits and dresses can convene various boring panels about bureaucracy and cooperation in beautiful buildings. To be sure, Russia gnaws away here or there at parts of Ukraine or Georgia, but the large industrialized democracies of Western Europe are wealthy, strong, and at peace. It is understandable that the Middle East and Asia‐​Pacific win more attention in Washington.At the same time, the United States maintains large, costly commitments to Europe decades after the Cold War. Why?One answer Cato scholars have been giving for decades is thatWashington used its leadership of NATO to smother European security cooperation because it wanted to maintain outsized influence over decisions involving European security. This was viewed, to the extent it was considered at all, as a  fringey, revisionist opinion.So let me welcome to the fringe the authors of the most recent report from the Center for American Progress ’ national security team, titled “The Case for EU Defense. ” In it, the authors don’t just call for more EU defense cooperation, but admit that “Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union.”But how can this be? After all, aren ’t American officials constantly complaining about low and in...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs