2A - U.S. reaction to CSDP: -very mixed, 3Ds - U.S. said EU...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
U.S. reaction to CSDP: -very mixed, 3Ds - U.S. said EU should emphasize military modernization, not integration - EU should emphasize NATO primacy EU reaction to US reaction to CSDP - autonomous EU action 1) 1998 St. Malo- “where the alliance as a whole is not engaged” 2) 1999 German President- “without prejudice to actions by NATO” 3) Finnish President- “Where NATO as a whole is not engaged” 3Ds- Madeline Albright 1) decoupling: EU should not de unhooked from NATO 2) discrimination: don’t discriminate against non-EU NATO countries 3) duplication: CSDP should not duplicate NATO capabilities Various U.S. perspectives: Positive of CSDP: - 1) isolationist group: U.S. should focus on economic and social issues at home, so CSDP means European can take care of itself - 2) U.S. is overstretched, needs help, which CSDP can provide, think increased integration is good. Negative of CSDP: -1) the “oh yeahs”- CSDP is empty, won’t be a threat to the U.S. - 2) CSDP is a threat! Various European perspectives: Atlanticists: UK, FR, NETH, etc. From: CSDP can help NATO To: CSDP can be worthwhile in itself Neutrals: From: CSDP represents military power, which they didn’t like To: CSDP represents autonomy from NATO, biggest contributors
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/17/2010 for the course IR 365 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at USC.

Page1 / 3

2A - U.S. reaction to CSDP: -very mixed, 3Ds - U.S. said EU...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online