The Cold War ended at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union is marked also by the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact as a true rival of NATO on March 31, 1991, and ended officially at a meeting in Prague on July 1, 1991. So the existence of NATO as a "Defender Of Europe" to be a separate debate since there is no longer a clear and significant enemy that would threaten European security. The question is whether the existence of NATO is still needed for post-cold war Europe.

Post-cold war, the situation in Europe is developing very dynamically in various fields, one of which is the existence and development of the European Union (EU), which increasingly solid. The European Union is an international organization that has been initiated since the end of World War II Europe that aims to recover from the devastation of war. In the early days of its establishment is more focused EU economic cooperation in particular in the steel enegi and then with the more stable economy and security, expanding cooperation in the field berabagai sesperti field social, cultural, educational and other perluasaan line with EU membership.
With the end of the cold war and the development of the EU, EU member countries are dominant, such as France and Germany began to question the existence of NATO as an institution of collective defense of Europe. With the rapid development of the EU in almost all areas except defense European security, they want that European collective defense should be handled by the Europeans themselves apart from NATO which is actually controlled or dominated by the United States. Plus in the United States International policy and Europe often opposite and that always wins in the context of NATO is the United States.

But on the other side of Europe that want to Independent from the United States in terms of defense and security do not have the ability in the budget plus not all EU member countries agreed to have its own defense forces, such as Britain, the Netherlands, and neutral countries such as EU members Sweden and Finland who do not want any military development in the EU.

Then in Europe emerged two blocks in the context of the interpretation of the existence of the first NATO-led Europeanist by French / German and the second led by the British Atlanticist. In this case it was clear that the starting point of issue is a matter of supremacy. NATO for decades thinking about supremacy over European security did not want to lose it. On the other side of Europe in this regard with the EU's rapid development, the defense wanted the supremacy itself off from the reliance on NATO (United States).

Each side has its own arguments, then the desire is not just easy to be decided or realized. This is supplemented also with the many and complex intergovernmental institutions in Europe which is an obstacle to the smooth running of the desire of each group above. For example, an example being Well (West European Union) in NATO and for Europe. The Well is the Pillars of European NATO because NATO is not all European countries and then not all members of the European Union is a member of the Well.

The issue above also become more complicated after the Balkan war in 1995, where to end the chaos in these southeastern European NATO troops were deployed under the leadership of the United States Atlanticist group. For this Europeanis Group is a crushing blow to their initial desire. In the Balkan wars showed that Europe is basically still need NATO in their defense. This causes a change in attitude among Europeanist become more software is not as hard as before.

  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS