Wales Agreement Nato

Another symptom of the problem is the lively debate on the strategic value of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to be concluded between the United States and the European Union. Some argue that the agreement is the last chance to consolidate the transatlantic link in a way that binds the two sides as strategic partners in a sustainable way and thus has an effect on the security of a trade agreement. Others argue that Europe`s strategic concerns are better able to respond with a regional approach to security and point out that the countries of the North, Eastern Europeans and the countries of the South of the EU are the most competent, the most natural and therefore the most able to secure their neighbourhoods. 1 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Wales Summit, press release of September 5, 2014 www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm. 10 “Juncker: NATO is not enough, the EU needs an army,” eurActiv, 9 March 2015, www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/juncker-nato-not-enough-eu-needs-army-312724. To criticise Juncker`s proposal, see Jan Techau, “The Illusion of an Independent European Army,” Judy Dempsey`s Strategic Europe (blog), Carnegie Europe, 10 March 2015, carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59296. During the summit, the following statements and agreements were made: in addition, the 10-year time limit leaves current governments out of the threa and increases the temptation to leave painful implementation to the governments that will succeed it. The chances of one of the signatory governments still in power in 2024 are extremely slim. Ignorance of a long-term commitment is therefore free of almost all political costs. 18 For more details, see NATO Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Center, Motivating Improved Contributions to the Alliance: Defense Measurements (Lisbonne: NATO Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Center, 2011), www.jallc.nato.int/newsmedia/docs/factsheet_defence_metrics.pdf. 3 NATO, “Defense Expenditures Data for 2014 and Estimates for 2015,” Press release, 22 June 2015, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_120866.htm. Of these symptoms, the 2% issue may be the least publicly visible, but given that it shows the willingness of NATO member countries to allocate funds, it is probably the most valuable indicator of the seriousness of the underlying policy issues.

It is not without a degree of tragedy that a subject as vast and damning as this is perhaps the most debated as a budgetary concern and not, as it would justify, as a subject related to geostrategic influence in Europe, the value of American security guarantees and, ultimately, the future of the world liberal order. Given the slow pace of growth in Europe and the continuing uncertainty about the economic future after the euro crisis, economic considerations will remain key factors in European underdevelopment in the future against the 2% measure. As a NATO defence planning instrument, this new index has been used every year since its inception. But the reports are classified and only for internal use, so the political value of this more sophisticated metric is limited.19 According to NATO sources, the new instrument is very effective in creating pressure within the alliance on underperforming countries. But no Member State wants to risk being quoted publicly and shamefully, so that its application remains largely invisible.