atlantic voices, vol. 4, no. 7

ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

Atlantic Voices, Volume 4, Issue 7

Since the establishment of NATO and the

North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 the Transat-

lantic Bond served as a security and commu-

nication bond between North America and

Europe based on shared norms and values

such as freedom, peace and prosperity.

Despite being the foundation of Euro-

Atlantic security, different perceptions of

security challenges, various priorities in na-

tional policies and strategies and an unequal

distribution to defense capabilities of the two

North Atlantic continents have lead to inse-

curities on both sides. Without a doubt the

Transatlantic Bond is crucial for both sides of

the Atlantic Ocean and has to include all

Parties to strengthen the collaboration and

trust between Western Allies.

This edition of Atlantic Voices will exam-

ine two views on the cooperation within

NATO and the Transatlantic Bond by ex-

ploring how current events, economic part-

nerships and joint military exercises are in-

fluencing the future Allied defence policies.

Edited By: Martha A. Scheja

171st NATO Chiefs of Defence meeting—General Philip Breedlove (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) and General Volker Wieker (Chief of

The Transatlantic Bond:

Facing Security Threats Together

Volume 4 - Issue 7 July 2014

Defence, Germany) (Photo: NATO)

Contents:

The Transatlantic Relationship in an Age of Austerity and

Change

Philip Ulrich illustrates the gaps in governance as well as recent events that

threaten the strength and integrity of the Transatlantic Bond. He argues that

shifts in foreign and economic policy on both sides of the Atlantic call for an

increase in the role of Europe in order to keep the United States involved.

Transatlantic Bond: Strength in Years to Come

Nathan Turregano examines the Transatlantic Bond regarding NATO’s reassur-

ance as a politically unifying and militarily cohesive force. Additionally, he ex-

plores the role economic ties like TTIP can play to strengthen NATO and the

connection and cooperation between the transatlantic partners.

Atlantic Voices, Volume 4, Issue 7 2

The Transatlantic Relationship in an Age of Austerity and Change

By Philip Chr. Ulrich

A s the NATO Alliance withdraws from its

mission in Afghanistan, it moves into a pe-

riod where the Alliance and the transatlan-

tic relationship have to be defined to match the devel-

oping world order. The crisis in Ukraine in the spring

of 2014 has shown that Europe still needs the United

States. However, the relationship has to be defined in

a time where the United States is redefining its for-

eign policy and defense budgets are being cut on both

sides of the Atlantic.

The challenge for the European Allies is two-

fold in regard to defining the future of the transatlan-

tic relationship. On the one hand, Europe must try to

keep the United States engaged in European affairs,

prompted by situations such as

the crisis in Ukraine, and on

the other hand, find a way to

meet the US demands for

greater European contributions

to meet common challenges.

Three factors are going

to be influencing the transatlantic relationship both in

the long- and near-term future:

The US ”pivot”/”rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific

region

Russian behavior towards Eastern Europe

Declining defense budgets on both sides of the

Atlantic

The Withdrawal From Afghanistan

The end of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is

the reason for the existential questions arising within

the Alliance. The Allies are faced with the challenge

of defining the future role for the Alliance.

Since 2003, NATO has had the leadership role over

the ISAF mission, which has served as the primary

focus of the Alliance ever since. This has not meant

that the Alliance has not carried out other operations

simultaneously; however, the greatest commitment of

resources from the Alliance has gone to the ISAF mis-

sion.

As the mission ends at the end of 2014, the Al-

liance needs a new mission for the future. The two

options for the Alliance are: a move back to a Cold

War-like stance focusing on territorial defense, or a

continued active Alliance with a global perspective

engaged in out-of-area missions. Given the global in-

terests of the NATO members, the second option

seems the most likely; however, the recent crisis in

Ukraine has prompted the question of whether an

entirely global focus is necessary.

Continued out-of-area engagement would help

the United States maintain a leading role in the global

security environment, which is a central aspiration of

the Obama-administration’s

foreign and defense policy. On

the other hand, continued out-

of-area engagement would en-

sure a continued, and potential-

ly increasing, global role for the

European Allies, either in a

NATO or EU setting.

Defining a new role for the NATO Alliance

following 2014 will also require a revision of the bur-

den sharing aspects of the transatlantic relationship.

Are the European Allies going to have to take on a

larger role in the future, prompted by declining US

defense budgets, and new US foreign policy objec-

tives and priorities? This is an important part of the

discussion which must be defined.

As the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

General Martin Dempsey, said in a recent interview:

“The NATO Alliance has done a great job in partner-

ing with us in Afghanistan. That showed the Alliance

was willing to look beyond its own borders and be-

come a regional force for good and stability. Now I

think the crisis in Ukraine is causing NATO to look

Europe must try and keep the United States engaged in European affairs...while on the

other hand meet the US demands for greater European contributions.


back to its own backyard, and forcing it to decide wheth-

er it still has the capability and capacity to reassure its

member states – especially those Eastern countries that

embraced NATO as

it enlarged in the

1990s – that the Al-

liance remains credi-

ble. So the Ukraine

crisis is a challenge

to the international

order, and we

should respond to it

as part of our

NATO Alliance.”

Th i s ve ry

clearly sums up the

setting for the dis-

cussion of NATO’s

future role following

the withdrawal from

Afghanistan.

US Pivot/Rebalance to Asia-Pacific

Since 2012, a major priority for the Obama-

administration has been to commit more efforts, both

diplomatically, economically and militarily to the Asia-

Pacific region in order to counter the declining US pres-

ence in the region for the previous decade. This ambition

of rebalancing towards this strategically important region

was reaffirmed in the 2014 version of the US Department

of Defense’s “Quadrennial Defense Review”, emphasizing

the deep desire of the Obama-administration to re-

balance, as well as the longer-term strategic interest for

the United States in carrying out this strategy. Since

2001, the United States has been unable to commit re-

sources to the Asia-Pacific region, proportional to the

region’s growing strategic importance. The Obama-

administration’s “rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific is an effort

to reverse this tendency.

This is the third time an American administration

has attempted to increase strategic focus on the Asia-

Pacific region since the end of the Cold War, however,

earlier attempts have been hindered by unforeseen inter-

national events, requiring US attention. These were

events like the civil wars in the Balkans in the 1990s

which moved the Clinton-administration away from

the Asia-Pacific, and the terrorist attacks on September

11 2001 which moved the Bush-administration’s atten-

tion to the Middle

East. The fact that

it is the third at-

tempt by the Unit-

ed States in 20

years, means that it

is something which

has a very high pri-

ority for the United

States, and some-

thing to which the

European Allies

will have to get

used to.

To achieve this

ambition of a more

balanced foreign

policy which also focuses on the Asia-Pacific, the

Obama-administration has led a very withdrawn for-

eign policy, making great efforts to avoid becoming

engaged in potentially new and long-term military

commitments, such as Libya or Syria. This has been

done in order to avoid US foreign policy from once

again being diverted by unforeseen global events be-

yond the control of the United States.

For the European Allies, this means a smaller

room to maneuver, as it is given beforehand that the

United States is very unlikely to commit forces in tra-

ditional proportions, to any mission which might turn

into a long-term stability operation. The fact that the

United States is unlikely to commit forces on the usual

scale means that a military option will rest in large part

on the European Allies, which in turn makes a military

option less likely.

The withdrawn US foreign policy has also meant

that the United States has been more reluctant to com-

mit forces to out of area missions such as Mali. There-

fore the European Allies have to commit more to in-

ternational missions, in order to compensate for de-

creased US contribution of forces.

In all, the US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific gives

The US continues to emphasize its “rebalance” towards the Asia-

Pacific. The European Allies will have to find a way to adapt to this fact.

(Photo: Washington Post)


far less diplomatic room to maneuver as the major

ally is unlikely to commit military resources, as

well as requires a greater role from the European

Allies, prompting a revision of the transatlantic

relationship when it comes to commitment of

military forces to any future missions.

Russian Behavior Towards Eastern Europe

Russian behavior in the early part of 2014,

has shown that the changing world order also has

effects on the immediate European perimeter.

The status of the United States as the world’s

leading super power is being challenged these

years, and Russian behavior towards Ukraine, is

part of this tendency.

The situation has prompted a reassurance

from the Obama-administration to its European

Allies, that the United States is committed to hon-

oring its treaty obligations under the NATO Pact.

This has also been shown in the form of increased

numbers of US military aircraft sent to the Baltics,

as well as increased commitment of US personnel

to a joint exercise in Po-

land.

The challenge for

both the European Allies

and the United States is to

find a common way to con-

front Russian behavior in

the region. The options, however, are very lim-

ited. As a military option is off the table to

reestablish Ukraine’s territory.

While the crisis in the Ukraine has meant a

confirmation of US commitment to the NATO

Alliance, it does also present a challenge in that it

goes to the center of the existential question that

the NATO Alliance is asking itself at the moment.

No one doubts that NATO continues to be im-

portant for the transatlantic relationship - that is

not the existential question. The question is what

the role of NATO should be in the future. Should

it be primarily focused on the territorial integrity

of the NATO Members, its traditional Cold War

role, or should it continue to focus on out-of-area

missions like the International Security Assistance

Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan and the counter-

piracy mission, Operation Ocean Shield in the Gulf of

Aden.

There is, however, one major challenge which

is currently defining the strategic debates on both

sides of the Atlantic - declining defense budgets.

Declining Defense Budgets on Both Sides of

the Atlantic

As a consequence of the ongoing financial cri-

sis, defense budgets have become the target of in-

creased attention and cuts. This tendency has been

prevailing on both sides of the Atlantic.

The reasoning behind major parts of the de-

fense cuts in many European countries has been that

with the end of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan the

nations can get a “peace dividend”. This means mov-

ing money from defense budgets to other budgets (or

remove them altogether), because the money is no

longer needed to sustain the mission in Afghanistan.

The decline in European defense budgets is

clear when looking at global

tendencies in defense budgets. In

2013, defense budgets in Europe

decreased, and for the first time

“Asia and Australasia” have over-

taken the position as the world’s

second biggest spenders, behind

the United States. These num-

bers are subject to debate of how one defines the geo-

graphic limits of Europe, as well as what is counted

under defense expenditures. However, the tendency

in later years has been a decrease in European defense

budgets. As Olivier de France says in a Brief Issue

from the European Union Institute for Security Stud-

ies: “Not unlike France in 1939, Europe in 2014 is

confronted with a ‘growing gap between security de-

mand and capability supply,’ as the IISS recently put

it.”

The argument on the American side of the At-

lantic has not only focused on the end of the mission

in Afghanistan, but the broader ending of the post-

9/11 conflicts. This is the culmination of the Obama-

administration’s efforts to bring the United States out

Europe in 2014 is confronted with a gap between security demand and ca-

pability to supply.


of the constant state of war in which the country has

found itself since 2001. By ending the post-9/11 con-

flicts, the Obama-administration’s goal is to focus on

domestic issues,

both politically and

financially.

The imple-

mentation of the

proposed budget

cuts will mean a

decreased US Ar-

my, and a greater

focus on the US

Navy and Air Force,

the two branches

most relevant to the

US rebalance to the

Asia-Pacific region.

This development

has for instance

shown itself through the withdrawal of the permanent

US Army presence in Europe.

The US defense budget can potentially be hit

harder than the current level of cuts, if

“Sequestration” returns for the fiscal year of 2016.

“Sequestration” has been put on hold for 2014 and

2015 as part of a budget agreement made in late 2013

in the US Congress.

This could mean further reductions in the size

of the US Army and Marine Corps, as well as have a

more limited impact on the US Navy and Air Force.

This could further limit the foreign policy options on

which the US administration can rely.

The US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region,

declining defense budgets, combined with a declining

political will in the United States, are resulting in the

more withdrawn US foreign policy observed in these

years. The trend of declining defense budgets on both

sides of the Atlantic, means a strain on the transatlan-

tic relationship.

Potential Strain on the Transatlantic Relation-

ship

The declining defense budgets go to the center

of the discussion of burden sharing between the Euro-

pean Allies and the United States. For years, the Unit-

ed States has called on European countries to contrib-

ute more to their common defense. This request has

been intensified due

to the US budget

cuts.

As European

Allies are also cutting

defense budgets, it

becomes difficult for

the Europeans to

meet the US request.

This means that Eu-

ropean Allies are una-

ble to increase their

contribution to the

NATO budgets, as

well as being unable

to increase their con-

tributions to interna-

tional missions or to possible future missions that might

arise.

As this debate has increased in recent years,

many American politicians have increasingly become

weary of the European Allies and their contributions to

common defense. Such weariness is potentially danger-

ous, as it can strain the transatlantic relationship, and

potentially provoke a decline in US contribution to the

NATO Alliance. This is an absolute worst-case scenar-

io, but is a threat which must be considered by NATO

members and partners.

This could mean further reductions in the size of

the US Army and Marine Corps, as well as have a more

limited impact on the US Navy and Air Force. This

could further limit the foreign policy options on which

the US administration can rely on.

The US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, de-

clining defense budgets, combined with a declining

political will in the United States, are resulting in the

more withdrawn US foreign policy observed in these

years. The trend of declining defense budgets on both

sides of the Atlantic means a strain on the transatlantic

relationship.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called on European Allies

in 2011 to contribute more to the common defense or face an uncertain

future for European security. (Photo: StarMedia)


the burden-sharing falling on the European Allies will

be for them to address the “growing gap between secu-

rity demand and capability supply”, mentioned before.

If the European Allies can address this issue, it will help

them in both keeping the United States engaged as well

as secure a larger role for the European nations in the

new world order which is forming these years, as a re-

sult of a withdrawing United States, decreased defense

budgets in the West,

as well as rising (or

reemerging) powers

around the world

claiming their spot at

the head of interna-

tional relations.

How the Euro-

pean Allies handle the

changing security

challenges will poten-

tially define the future

of the transatlantic

relationship. The re-

definition of this rela-

tionship will in turn

be closely linked to

the definition of

NATO’s future role

post-2014.

About the author

Philip Chr. Ulrich holds an M.A. in American Stud-

ies from the University of Southern Denmark. He ana-

lyzes American foreign and defense policy for the Dan-

ish website Kongressen.com. He has previously

worked as head of section at the Royal Danish Defence

College, where he published several briefs on US de-

fense and foreign policy. He has also completed an in-

ternship at the Lessons Learned / Development Section

at the Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence

in Enschede, the Netherlands.

A Need for Europe to Step Up to the Plate

The withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghani-

stan has prompted this need to redefine NATO’s fu-

ture mission and consequently might alter the transat-

lantic relationship. What will impact the way forward

for the transatlantic relationship will be the declining

defense budgets, the US rebalance to Asia-Pacific, as

well as the need to figure out a way to stand united

against Russia’s

behavior in East-

ern Europe.

T h e s e

factors will re-

quire the Euro-

pean Allies to

take on a greater

role in the trans-

atlantic relation-

ship. The most

pressing and

influential of

these factors is

the declining

budgets, as they

influence the

political will to

commi t re -

sources to po-

tential missions, as well as the resources which can be

committed in case a mission is decided upon.

Central to defining the transatlantic relation-

ship for the post-Afghanistan period will be the issue

of burden-sharing. The United States is reprioritizing

its foreign policy to adapt to fit the budgetary situa-

tion and a strategic need to focus on the Asia-Pacific.

This means an opportunity, as well as a need, for the

European Allies to take on greater responsibility in

the Alliance. Whether this can be done is very much

dependent on how the Allies handle the ongoing de-

fense cuts, and how the political as well as public will,

develop in regards to committing military forces to

international missions.

The clear issue in regards to a greater part of

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry,

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Ki-

shida and Japan's Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera pose for photos in

Tokyo on October 3, 2013.(Photo: Koji Sasahara/Courtesy Reuters)


By Nathan Turregano

W ith growing threats on the Eastern bor-

der of Europe and with extremism in the

Arab World on the rise, the Transatlan-

tic Bond is more crucial than ever. This relationship

among the North Atlantic countries acts as one of the

strongest alliances in the free world. This relationship has

existed since the First World War and has had its fair

share of prosperity along with its times of peril. These

times of strife over the years have led to an unfortunate

but natural fading of trust among the Allies. Lack of ac-

tion from NATO in conflicts has caused ripples in the

security community and among its member states. The

United States’ shift towards Asia has made its investment

of military and economic entities in the European region

decline in recent decades. These breaks in trust across the

Atlantic need to be repaired in order for the region to

present a strong, cooperative, and

cohesive West. In each of these sec-

tors there are legislative directives

and approaches that need to be or

are currently being implemented.

Within the political aspect of the

situation, NATO reassurance is the

key to promoting a united front of

upholding Article 5 and the integrity of the Alliance. The

military cohesion comes with an increase in joint training

exercises among countries contributing troops to NATO.

Within the economic field, the adoption of the Transat-

lantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agree-

ment is the key to further linking North America and Eu-

rope. These will solidify the Transatlantic bond for years

to come and help it face adversaries on all fronts.

NATO Reassurance as Political Solidification

The strength of the Transatlantic Bond in the com-

ing months and years will be based on the strength of the

basic values of NATO and how they stand in its member

nations, especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

After Russia’s actions towards Ukraine, NATO’s foun-

dation of cooperative defense has once again become

relevant, but long out of practice. After the Cold War

NATO strayed from this keystone in the Alliance and

began other security and humanitarian measures in or-

der to maintain relevance within the modern world.

With its ventures outside of Europe and its lack of re-

sponse in the Russo-Georgian conflict, the cohesion of

the Alliance has come into question further. This re-

turn to the core of the Alliance will take some read-

justment among the organization, which begins with

reassurance of member states.

With Russia challenging the European continent

and the United States with its growing military and

economic power, NATO must be able to uphold Arti-

cle 5 at any cost. Countries in Eastern Europe such as

Moldova and Lithuania are suspected to be in Russia’s

line of sight for future cam-

paigns. NATO must be able, if

a member state is attacked, to

rally all member states to come

to assistance militarily in the

prevention of Russian advance-

ment into Europe or its pe-

riphery.

The reassurance must encompass multiple stra-

tegic policy areas, the first being a more in depth and

comprehensive crisis management plan for each and

every member state. Individual contingency plans must

be drafted, for each member state, that address the

possibility of future aggression within a member state

of NATO. These plans show the nations that NATO

officials and military personnel can work together co-

hesively in order to enact the security force of NATO.

Probably the most crucial element of reassur-

ance that plays into the strengthening of the Transat-

lantic Bond is the further engagement and cooperation


The strength of the Transatlantic Bond in the coming months and years will be based on the strength of the basic values of NATO and how they stand

in its member nations.


among international organizations such as the EU

and the UN, along with national governments

themselves. NATO itself cannot handle the politi-

cal and economic burden of the crises completely

on its own. Defense budgets on both sides of the

Atlantic are declining while the forces needed in

Eastern Europe are increasing in demand. With

the partnership of NATO and the European Un-

ion, the EU plays an important role of evaluating

the economic and political impact of Russia’s ac-

tions within Europe. The partnership can act as a

seamless continuum in order to combat threats of

both military and non-military nature. The new

member states’ relationship with NATO is where

improvements need to be made in order to im-

prove the overall strength of the Alliance. Instead

of asking for military assistance from older or

more Western member states, these new mem-

bers need to

secure their

own military

reforms.

T h e s e

r e a s s u r a n c e

policies will

impact the

strength of the

Transatlantic

Bond in multi-

ple ways. The

first being the

r e e s t a b l i s h -

ment of the

true political

nature of cooperative defense. Instead of individual

states coming up with personal agendas and securi-

ty policies, it gives a common contingency plan

that brings each member state closer and more

interdependent upon one another. The second is

an increase in cooperation among non-NATO or-

ganizations, which increases support in future po-

litical and operational endeavors. These partner-

ships will also be beneficial in solidifying cohesion

among member states’ national governments with

increased coordination and cooperation on a political

level rather than a security one. Reassurance is the

key to future political cooperation of the Alliance and

the Transatlantic Bond as a political entity.

Military Cohesion

The military acts as the backbone of the policy

enacted by NATO and therefore must be cohesive and

rapidly deployable. Although defense spending on

both sides of the Atlantic are declining, it is crucial to

have operational presence in at risk areas and member

nations. This would include the continuation of mili-

tary exercises and joint training in order to further the

cohesion among different NATO military factions.

Also, the continued surveillance and intelligence gath-

ering in Central and Eastern Europe with the contin-

ued operational assistance of both equipment and

troops to Central and Eastern Europe as further de-

terrence.

2014 marks a major shift in NATO policy.

First and foremost, it

marks the cease of

major operations with-

in Afghanistan. This

withdrawal of a sizable

number of NATO

troops has a much

more sizable impact on

the strength of the

Transatlantic Bond in

terms of member

states’ military cohe-

sion. Operations in

Afghanistan were not

only beneficial to the

Afghan people and the country as a whole, but also

acted as an outlet for NATO member militaries to

work together at an operational capability level on a

day to day basis. This interaction increased the trust

and bond between NATO military entities that should

exist without the need of major operations such as

Afghanistan. Since the Alliance is withdrawing a ma-

jority of the troops from this operation and switching

to operation Resolute Support, it is feared that the

cohesion between militaries will fade away and lead to

Joint Training Exercises of the NATO Allies

(Photo: Allied Command Operations)


complications further down the road.

These complications between militaries have

potential to tear at the very seams of NATO and its

cooperative security agenda and thus the Transatlantic

Bond as a whole. In future operations, military enti-

ties from separate countries will be in lack of informal

and formal information and intelligence sharing,

knowledge and trust of each others’ capabilities as a

military force, and potential distrust between person-

nel. These factors are a recipe for disaster if NATO is

needed to make future military operations requiring

multiple member armies. This is the main concern in

regards to the Russian

threat to the West and

upholding Article 5.

The solution to this

issue can be found in the

increase of joint training

exercises across Europe.

These exercises will pro-

vide a way for militaries

to work together in a non

lethal environment in or-

der to establish trust in

one another, working

effectively together in the

future. Operations such

as Steadfast Javelin are especially effective in light of

recent events. Namely, Steadfast Javelin allowed for

more major powers to establish a relationship with

smaller militaries, which in this case it were the Esto-

nians. It is critical for major super powers to enhance

their operational capabilities with smaller nations on

the eastern border of Europe. The cooperation be-

tween major military superpowers happens on a day

to day basis in bi-lateral and multi-lateral operations

outside of NATO. Thus, the focus should be shifted

towards joint exercises that include major NATO

forces with a smaller less powerful NATO military,

especially in the Eastern nations. These operations

will show major military support for Article 5 in the

Eastern member states as well as show that major mil-

itary entities are capable of acting as a further deter-

rence to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

Further Economic Ties

The Transatlantic Bond spreads beyond just

NATO and collective military capabilities. The econ-

omy plays a large role in the strength among nations

across the North Atlantic. The European Union has

progressed Europe by leaps and bounds as a single

economic entity, thus boosting the economies of each

and every member state. Europe now competes with

China and the United States in terms of level of eco-

nomic output compared to each individual European

state competing individually against major superpow-

ers. The Transatlantic Bond needs strong economic

ties in order to main-

tain its beneficial and

close relationship,

especially the case

between the US and

Europe. With the

recent Transatlantic

Trade and Investment

Partnership (TTIP)

agreement, the eco-

nomic ties across the

ocean will be even

greater than before.

TTIP encom-

passes multiple re-

forms in trade between Europe and the Untied States.

First and foremost, it seeks to remove trade barriers

in a wide range of economic sectors in efforts to make

it easier to buy and sell goods between the EU and the

US. In addition to the elimination of tariff barriers,

TTIP aims to tackle issues associated with customs

barriers, which include technical regulations, stand-

ards and approval procedures. It claims that these bar-

riers usually mean extra time and costs to buyers and

sellers who participate in both the US and the Europe-

an markets. Another reason TTIP seeks to reform

regulatory policies is because closer relations with the

US would make regulation more effective, by only

taking the best ideas from both laws and implement-

ing them as a common policy, improving cohesion

across the pond furthering the already large economic

and political implications of this agreement.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen

(Photo: NATO International)


TTIP is in its 6th round of negotiations be-

tween the EU and the US. Although the negotiations

are working towards producing an effective and bene-

ficial agreement for both parties, the negative effects

of TTIP are difficult to work around. The looming

problem associated with TTIP is how this regional

trade agreement will affect global trade. First and

foremost, it will make integration of current US and

EU trading partners even more difficult than before.

This exclusive agreement will, by association, in-

crease the regulatory standards of countries such as

Mexico and Turkey in order for their products to be

accepted into the TTIP market. Another global impli-

cation of TTIP is that it appears as an act of solidarity

within the West. In a geopolitical scheme, China feels

being the direct target of TTIP and that this economic

bond is exclusively to rival it as an upcoming global

economic powerhouse. This is, of course, dispelled by

the West who claims that this is purely for the growth

of the European and US economies through less regu-

lated trade.

The Transatlantic Bond as a whole will greatly

be affected by this trade partnership. For an obvious

reason, it will bring the North Atlantic together as a

whole through increasing cohesion of regulatory and

tariff policies, forcing cooperation of policy makers

from both sides of the sea. The current NATO Secre-

tary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has stated in the

past that he believes TTIP is critical to creating an

“Integrated Transatlantic Community”. The Transat-

lantic Bond is one of the most important transnational

relationships in the free world with trade being the

lifeblood. Anything to boost the solidarity and effi-

ciency will lead to a bolstering in all aspects of the

relationship, including security and political agendas.

Concluding Thoughts

NATO, of course, as a transatlantic organiza-

tion, is obviously in favor of strengthening the Trans-

atlantic Bond. Probably one of the biggest supporters

of closer ties is the NATO Secretary General himself

who has pushed and supported a strong transatlantic

community throughout his entire political career. In

the recent “Strengthening the Transatlantic Bond”

conference, he made it clear what needs to be done in

order to further bolster relations across the Atlantic.

He expressed his support for the Transatlantic Trade

and Investment Partnership and its key role in

strengthening the economic ties of North America

and Europe. He addressed how NATO itself needs to

be strengthened in order to accomplish closer ties

across the Atlantic. He also stressed the importance of

public support to Transatlantic Bond in order to fur-

ther progress policy and establish security for future

generations. This led him to discussing the im-

portance of incorporating young leaders and profes-

sionals in research and policy ideas. This will lead to

the future ideas and outlook of the Alliance and how

its role and activities will affect the future of regional

security and the Transatlantic Bond.

Secretary General Rasmussen understands that

NATO plays a critical role in the Transatlantic Bond

but also that this is not the core of the relationship.

With the ongoing reassurance, the security agenda at

a political level will present a cooperative defense that

has not been seen since the founding of NATO in

1949. This cooperative security will have some of the

most integrated and cohesive troops at its disposal in

case of any kind of Article 5 emergencies. All of these

political and military structures will be backed by the

solid TTIP agreement allowing for more uniformity

in the trade across the North Atlantic. The Transat-

lantic Bond in the coming years will be stronger than

ever with the ability to combat any form of threats

whether it is a nation state, radical political agenda or

an economic crisis.

About the author

Nathan Turregano is a BA student at the American

University in Washington D.C., studying Internation-

al Relations and Arabic. He is currently a Program

Assistant at the Atlantic Treaty Association Secretariat

in Brussels, Belgium. He will be studying Intensive

Arabic in Amman, Jordan, for the next two collegiate

semesters.


Bibliographies

The Transatlantic Relationship In An Age of Austerity and Change by Philip Chr. Ulrich

”Dempsey Wants to ’Rebalance the Use of Mili-tary Power” http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/dempsey-wants-rebalance-away-use-military-force/84271/

Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, Janu-ary 2012

International Security Assistance Force:

http://www.isaf.nato.int/Operation Ocean Shield:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/ topics_48815.htm

Olivier de France: Defence budgets: Europe’s Magi-not moment?, European Union Institute for Secu-rity Studies, March 2014, p. 1

U.S. Department of Defense: Estimated Impacts of Sequestration-Level Funding http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Estimated_Impacts_of_Sequestration-Level_Funding_April.pdf

U.S. Department of Defense: Quadrennial De-fense Review 2014, March 2014


by Nathan Turregano

Benitez, J. (2013). "NATO Secretary General: '

I Strongly Support' TTIP."

Commission, E. (2014). "What is the Transat-

lantic Trade and Investment Partnership

(TTIP)?".

Katinka Barysch, M. H. (2014). "Will TTIP

Harm the Global Trading System?" from

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/will-ttip-

harm-global-trading-system.

Organization, N. A. T. (2014). "NATO secretary

General Remarks at the conference

"Strengthening the Transatlantic Bond"."

Ronald Asmus, S. C., Chris Donnelly, Avis

Rovis, Tomas Valasek, Klaus Wittmann (2010).

NATO, New Allies and Reassurance. C. F. E.

Reform.

Secretary, T. W. H. O. o. t. P. (2014).

"European Reassurance Initiative and Other U.S.

Efforts in Support of NATO Allies and Partners."

from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-

off ice/2014/06/03/fact -sheet-european-

reassurance-initiative-and-other-us-efforts-

support-.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/05/dempsey-wants-rebalance-away-use-military-force/84271/



http://www.isaf.nato.int/

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48815.htm

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48815.htm

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Estimated_Impacts_of_Sequestration-Level_Funding_April.pdf




This publication is coThis publication is coThis publication is co---sponsored by the sponsored by the sponsored by the

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization

Atlantic Voices is always seeking new material. If you are a young re-

searcher, subject expert or professional and feel you have a valuable con-

tribution to make to the debate, then please get in touch.

We are looking for papers, essays, and book reviews on issues of im-

portance to the NATO Alliance.

For details on how to submit your work please see our website. Fur-

ther enquiries can also be directed to the ATA Secretariat at the address

listed below.

ATA Programs

From 4-5 September 2014 the Atlantic Council of the

United States, Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom and

the Atlantic Treaty Association will host the 2014 Future

Leaders Summit on the side-lines of the official NATO

Summit in Wales.

The ninth annual Riga Conference will take place on 12

-13 September 2014. The Riga Conference has been honored

with the presence of countless heads of state, heads of gov-

ernment, foreign and defense ministers, NATO and EU offi-

cials, and ambassadors from all around the world.

The Estonian Atlantic Treaty Association is organizing

together with the Latvian Transatlantic Organization, the

Friedrich Ebert Foundation and NATO HQ, the fourth annu-

al Baltic-Russia Youth Forum on 19-22 November 2014

in Riga, Latvia.

Images should not be reproduced without permission from sources listed, and remain the sole property of those sources. Unless otherwise stated, all images are the property of NATO.

Atlantic Voices is the monthly publication of the Atlantic Treaty Associa-

tion. It aims to inform the debate on key issues that affect the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, its goals and its future. The work published in Atlantic

Voices is written by young professionals and researchers.

The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an international non-

governmental organization based in Brussels working to facilitate global

networks and the sharing of knowledge on transatlantic cooperation and

security. By convening political, diplomatic and military leaders with

academics, media representatives and young professionals, the ATA promotes

the values set forth in the North Atlantic Treaty: Democracy, Freedom,

Liberty, Peace, Security and Rule of Law. The ATA membership extends to 37

countries from North America to the Caucasus throughout Europe. In 1996,

the Youth Atlantic Treaty Association (YATA) was created to specifially

include to the successor generation in our work.

Since 1954, the ATA has advanced the public’s knowledge and

understanding of the importance of joint efforts to transatlantic security

through its international programs, such as the Central and South Eastern

European Security Forum, the Ukraine Dialogue and its Educational Platform.

In 2011, the ATA adopted a new set of strategic goals that reflects the

constantly evolving dynamics of international cooperation. These goals include:

the establishment of new and competitive programs on international

security issues.

the development of research initiatives and security-related events for

its members.

the expansion of ATA’s international network of experts to countries in

Northern Africa and Asia.

The ATA is realizing these goals through new programs, more policy

activism and greater emphasis on joint research initiatives.

These programs will also aid in the establishment of a network of

international policy experts and professionals engaged in a dialogue with

NATO.

The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Atlantic Treaty Association, its members, affiliates or staff.

atlantic voices, vol. 4, no. 7

News & Politics