The Eurocorps: making a fresh start in Europe.

• Author: Clarke, Jonathan G.
• Position: Proposal to establish European force to replace NATO

The French and German proposal to establish a force to supplement NATO - and eventually replace it - is an encouraging sign that the European nations want to assume responsibility for their own defense.

The demise of the Soviet Union creates the opportunity for new U.S. thinking to break through the permafrost that has overlain European security structures since the 1949 creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Some imaginative ideas have emerged, notably the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, formed in 1990 to promote cooperation between the former NATO and Warsaw Pact adversaries, and overtures to Russia about sharing early warning technology for anti-ballistic missile systems. However, Bush Administration officials balked at the vital fence - NATO itself - and the Clinton Administration is unlikely to adopt a different approach. The fact that the threat envisaged in articles five and six of the North Atlantic Treaty - a massive attack on the territory of a NATO member - universally is acknowledged to be dead (even NATO's most committed supporters such as the United Kingdom share that view), presents a unique opportunity to rethink radically the entire question of American forward deployment in Europe.

Instead of confronting that fundamental issue, the, U.S. prefers to tinker. Rather than open up the discussion to all ideas, policymakers have become bogged down in minutiae: Does a hypothetical floor of 150,000 U.S. troops, proposed by the Bush Administration, or 100,000, offered by the Clinton Administration, constitute an adequate deterrent? (Against whom?) Does the North Atlantic Treaty allow NATO deployment outside the treaty area? (Perhaps.) Can NATO accept peace-keeping commissions from regional bodies such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe? (Yes, if certain conditions are met.) Finally, can NATO take on humanitarian or civil projects? All those notions smack of self-serving job preservation, rather than a serious attempt to provide a credible rationale for the presence in the contemporary European security landscape of massively armored U.S. tank and infantry divisions.

By taking such a timorous approach, the U.S. may lose an exceptional opportunity to transcend NATO and simultaneously reinvigorate American long-term interests in Europe along lines likely to command bipartisan support. Early signs are that the Clinton Administration, whose statements to date emphasize an orthodox continuity in foreign policy, also will fail to think boldly. Although there is a general consensus that it will accelerate the rate of drawdown of American troops from Europe, there is no indication that it will give any truly creative thought to the future of NATO.

Opportunity for more significant change lies in the innovative French and German ideas for a "Eurocorps," a fledgling European force that, when fully developed, would allow them to assume responsibility for their own defense. After Clinton's victory, Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany said he hoped that the change of administration would give new impetus to the Eurocorps concept.

On May 22, 1992, Pres. Francois Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany - drawing on the agreements reached at the NATO and European Community summits, respectively, in late 1991 to develop a "European pillar" to NATO and construct a European defense identity - announced the formation of a Eurocorps. This force, which initially will consist of between 35,000 and 40,000 troops, will be ready for action by 1995. It will undertake three missions: action within the joint defense framework of the allies in accordance with article five of the NATO treaty or in accordance with the Western European Union (WEU) treaty; action aimed at preserving peace; and action aimed at providing humanitarian assistance.

The Eurocorps walks a delicate line between the position agreed to at the NATO...