Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Since the end of the Cold War (1990), the enlargements of NATO and the European Union have not been zero-sum games. The integration of new Member States partially modifies the European Union and its relation to NATO. France is redefining its posture within NATO, hoping to put a brake on the development of the Europe of defense that it must first present. It will then be necessary to characterize relations between the United States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This will give full meaning to the question of the return of France to the integrated command of NATO. Finally, we must ask ourselves whether the Lisbon Treaty is capable of building the foundations of a powerful Europe. ; Depuis la fin de la Guerre froide (1990), les élargissements de l'Otan et de l'Union européenne ne sont pas des jeux à somme nulle. L'intégration de nouveaux États membres modifie partiel-lement l'Union européenne et sa relation à l'Otan. La France redéfinit sa posture au sein de l'Otan, dans l'espoir de lever un frein au développement de l'Europe de la défense qu'il con-vient d'abord de présenter. Il sera nécessaire, ensuite, de caractériser les relations entre les États-Unis et les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale. Ce qui donnera tout son sens à la question du retour de la France dans le commandement intégré de l'Otan. Enfin, il convient de se de-mander si le traité de Lisbonne est à même de construire les bases d'une Europe puissance.

International audience ; Since the end of the Cold War (1990), the enlargements of NATO and the European Union have not been zero-sum games. The integration of new Member States partially modifies the European Union and its relation to NATO. France is redefining its posture within NATO, hoping to put a brake on the development of the Europe of defense that it must first present. It will then be necessary to characterize relations between the United States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This will give full meaning to the question of the return of France to the integrated command of NATO. Finally, we must ask ourselves whether the Lisbon Treaty is capable of building the foundations of a powerful Europe. ; Depuis la fin de la Guerre froide (1990), les élargissements de l'Otan et de l'Union européenne ne sont pas des jeux à somme nulle. L'intégration de nouveaux États membres modifie partiel-lement l'Union européenne et sa relation à l'Otan. La France redéfinit sa posture au sein de l'Otan, dans l'espoir de lever un frein au développement de l'Europe de la défense qu'il con-vient d'abord de présenter. Il sera nécessaire, ensuite, de caractériser les relations entre les États-Unis et les pays d'Europe centrale et orientale. Ce qui donnera tout son sens à la question du retour de la France dans le commandement intégré de l'Otan. Enfin, il convient de se de-mander si le traité de Lisbonne est à même de construire les bases d'une Europe puissance.

International audience ; The ratification of the Protocol of Accession to NATO of the Republic of North Macedonia did not raise any difficulties before the French Parliament. However, on this occasion, questions reappeared about the meaning and future of NATO, about the interests and the challenges of this accession for the candidate states, in particular the Balkan states and, indirectly, about the relationship existing with their possible accession to the European Union. Entry to NATO remains the priority for these states. ; La ratification du Protocole d'adhésion à l'OTAN de la République de Macédoine du Nord n'a pas soulevé de difficultés devant le Parlement français. Néanmoins, à cette occasion sont réapparues les questions sur le sens et l'avenir de l'OTAN, sur les intérêts et les enjeux de cette adhésion pour les Etats candidats, notamment balkaniques et, indirectement, sur la relation existant avec leur adhésion éventuelle à l'Union européenne. L'entrée à l'OTAN reste toujours la priorité pour ces États

International audience ; The ratification of the Protocol of Accession to NATO of the Republic of North Macedonia did not raise any difficulties before the French Parliament. However, on this occasion, questions reappeared about the meaning and future of NATO, about the interests and the challenges of this accession for the candidate states, in particular the Balkan states and, indirectly, about the relationship existing with their possible accession to the European Union. Entry to NATO remains the priority for these states. ; La ratification du Protocole d'adhésion à l'OTAN de la République de Macédoine du Nord n'a pas soulevé de difficultés devant le Parlement français. Néanmoins, à cette occasion sont réapparues les questions sur le sens et l'avenir de l'OTAN, sur les intérêts et les enjeux de cette adhésion pour les Etats candidats, notamment balkaniques et, indirectement, sur la relation existant avec leur adhésion éventuelle à l'Union européenne. L'entrée à l'OTAN reste toujours la priorité pour ces États

Desde o fim da Guerra Fria que as manifestações de um certo unilateralismo americano não deixam de inquietar os Europeus. Durante a guerra do Kosovo em 1999, ocorreram vários desentendimentos transatlânticos e a crise veio evidenciar os limites da União Europeia. Não tendo o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas autorizado, explicitamente, a acção militar contra a Sérvia, diversos diplomatas europeus manifestaram a sua inquietação face a um duplo deslize da retórica americana tendencialmente política e depois moral, onde os contornos mudavam consoante os interesses de Washington. A invocação súbita da "comunidade internacional" liderada pelos Estados Unidos, e a banalização do apelo à "solidariedade atlântica" suscitaram reacções de supeita senão mesmo de desconfiança. A solidariedade com os Estados Unidos, mais que nunca, toma um carácter obrigatório. O artigo 5 da NATO foi invocado e a subscrição dos objectivos de guerra americanos tornou-se quase incontornável. Qual o significado e o impacto desta situação para a União Europeia em particular para a definição de uma política externa e de segurança comum credível? É conveniente recordar três pontos: por um lado o choque internacional produzido pelos atentados do 11 de Setembro saldou-se pelo pior momento diplomático para a União Europeia. Por outro lado e em consequência do primeiro ponto, a Europa deverá agora, gerir um risco político que hipoteca o futuro da sua diplomacia comum. A nova situação internacional comporta um certo número de oportunidades que os europeus fazem mal não agarrar, com a condição que exista uma vontade política

Europe and its security have seen a very rich development in the last few years of the Cold War. In fact, just six years ago we discussed the French idea of creating a European confederation, which unfortunately seems to be part of history. The Balkan crisis then turned into a kind of behavioural test of countries and international organisations, almost immediately. We are witnessing the effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance and the confirmation of its necessity in the face of the risks of our time. It is also worth recalling the importance of the French commitment in Bosnia: the dispatch of the Rapid Action Force (FAR) units was an action that led President Clinton to deploy US units in Bosnia. In any case, US engagement in Bosnia shows that more NATO can mean more Europe tomorrow. In this article, the author focuses on Czech security policy, in particular in his relations with NATO and in collaboration with the United States. ; International audience ; Europe and its security have seen a very rich development in the last few years of the Cold War. In fact, just six years ago we discussed the French idea of creating a European confederation, which unfortunately seems to be part of history. The Balkan crisis then turned into a kind of behavioural test of countries and international organisations, almost immediately. We are witnessing the effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance and the confirmation of its necessity in the face of the risks of our time. It is also worth recalling the importance of the French commitment in Bosnia: the dispatch of the Rapid Action Force (FAR) units was an action that led President Clinton to deploy US units in Bosnia. In any case, US engagement in Bosnia shows that more NATO can mean more Europe tomorrow. In this article, the author focuses on Czech security policy, in particular in his relations with NATO and in collaboration with the United States. ; L'Europe et sa sécurité ont connu, en ces quelques années d'après-guerre froide, une évolution très riche en événements. En effet, ...

Cet article s'intéresse à la place de la contre-asymétrie dans la posture stratégique de l'OTAN. Il est question de revenir, moyennant une approche historico-analytique, sur l'évolution de la prise en charge par l'OTAN de la menace asymétrique que ce soit pendant ou après la Guerre froide. Il en découle que malgré une omniprésence de la menace asymétrique, à caractères terroriste ou insurrectionnel, l'OTAN est demeuré dans une posture ambivalente depuis sa création en 1949 jusqu'aux attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Mais depuis, on constate un effort considérable d'adaptation avec l'adoption d'une doctrine contre-asymétrique qui ne constitue en fin de compte qu'une catharsis de l'expérience afghane. A cet égard, une révolution paradigmatique demeure nécessaire en vue de se libérer de la pesanteur de la Guerre froide et fonder une stratégie multidimensionnelle combinant les solutions sécuritaire, politique, socioéconomique, culturelle, etc. ; Este artículo se centra en el papel que desempeña la contra-asimetría en la postura estratégica de la OTAN. Se ha utilizado un enfoque histórico-analítico para comprobar cómo se ha desarrollado el interés de la OTAN en la lucha contra de las amenazas asimétricas, durante y después de la Guerra Fría. Como resultado, hemos comprobado que, a pesar de la omnipresencia de las amenazas asimétricas, de carácter terrorista o insurgente, la OTAN ha mantenido una postura ambivalente desde su creación en 1949 hasta los atentados del 11 de septiembre de 2001. Pero, desde entonces, se puede constatar un esfuerzo notable para adaptarse, con la adopción de una doctrina de contrainsurgencia que, en definitiva, ha resultado de la catarsis tras la experiencia afgana. En este sentido, una revolución paradigmática es imprescindible para liberarse del peso de la Guerra Fría e idear una estrategia multidimensional que combine soluciones de orden de seguridad, político, socioeconómico, cultural, etc. ; This article looks at the place of counter-asymmetry in NATO strategic posture. It is a question of reexamining, through a historic-analytic approach, the evolution of how NATO addresses the asymmetric threats, be it during or after the cold war era. This implies that no matter how pervasive the asymmetric threat is, terrorist or insurrectional, NATO adopted an ambiguous posture since it was created in 1949 until the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then however, we noticed great adaptation efforts with the implementation of a counter-asymmetric doctrine, which is seen, at the end the day, more like a catharsis of the Afghanistan experience. In this respect, a paradigmatic revolution becomes necessary in order to break NATO free from the legacy of the cold war and build a multi-dimensional strategy that integrates solutions for security, political, socio-economical, cultural issues…etc.

Vladimir Putin's rise to power marks a political turning point for Russia. This country, which experienced a loss of control on the international scene during the 1990s, now displays a desire to regain its historic place as a great nation. Faced with it is NATO, formerly created to oppose the USSR. After the Cold War, this defenseorganization expanded into the former Soviet space with the accession of the Central and Eastern European states. Such a situation combined with the Russian strategy of regaining power, especially in its neighbor, is causing tensions to return. However, it seems wrong to consider NATO as a single bloc. Indeed, the alliance take its decisions unanimously, so it seems relevant to analyze the policy between NATO and Russia through the bilateral relations of the members of the organization. The combination of these elements on the international scene brings either a rapprochement based on shared interests or a confrontation based on differences. This analysis makes it possible to highlight the political, economic, and security dynamics leading to a balance of powers, both European and global. ; L'arrivée au pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine marque un tournant politique pour la Russie. Ce pays, qui a connu une perte de puissance sur la scène internationale pendant la décennie 1990, affiche désormais une volonté de retrouver sa place historique de grande nation. Face à elle se trouve l'OTAN, créée jadis pour s'opposer à l'URSS. Après la guerre froide, cette organisation de défense s'est étendue dans l'ancien espace soviétique avec l'adhésion des États d'Europe centrale et orientale. Une telle situation, combinée à la stratégie russe de retrouver sa puissance, notamment dans son étranger proche, fait que les tensions reviennent. Toutefois, il semble erroné de considérer l'OTAN comme un bloc unique. En effet, en partant du fait que les décisions de l'Alliance sont prises à l'unanimité, il apparaît pertinent d'analyser la politique entre l'OTAN et la Russie à travers les relations bilatérales des ...

Vladimir Putin's rise to power marks a political turning point for Russia. This country, which experienced a loss of control on the international scene during the 1990s, now displays a desire to regain its historic place as a great nation. Faced with it is NATO, formerly created to oppose the USSR. After the Cold War, this defenseorganization expanded into the former Soviet space with the accession of the Central and Eastern European states. Such a situation combined with the Russian strategy of regaining power, especially in its neighbor, is causing tensions to return. However, it seems wrong to consider NATO as a single bloc. Indeed, the alliance take its decisions unanimously, so it seems relevant to analyze the policy between NATO and Russia through the bilateral relations of the members of the organization. The combination of these elements on the international scene brings either a rapprochement based on shared interests or a confrontation based on differences. This analysis makes it possible to highlight the political, economic, and security dynamics leading to a balance of powers, both European and global. ; L'arrivée au pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine marque un tournant politique pour la Russie. Ce pays, qui a connu une perte de puissance sur la scène internationale pendant la décennie 1990, affiche désormais une volonté de retrouver sa place historique de grande nation. Face à elle se trouve l'OTAN, créée jadis pour s'opposer à l'URSS. Après la guerre froide, cette organisation de défense s'est étendue dans l'ancien espace soviétique avec l'adhésion des États d'Europe centrale et orientale. Une telle situation, combinée à la stratégie russe de retrouver sa puissance, notamment dans son étranger proche, fait que les tensions reviennent. Toutefois, il semble erroné de considérer l'OTAN comme un bloc unique. En effet, en partant du fait que les décisions de l'Alliance sont prises à l'unanimité, il apparaît pertinent d'analyser la politique entre l'OTAN et la Russie à travers les relations bilatérales des ...

Vladimir Putin's rise to power marks a political turning point for Russia. This country, which experienced a loss of control on the international scene during the 1990s, now displays a desire to regain its historic place as a great nation. Faced with it is NATO, formerly created to oppose the USSR. After the Cold War, this defenseorganization expanded into the former Soviet space with the accession of the Central and Eastern European states. Such a situation combined with the Russian strategy of regaining power, especially in its neighbor, is causing tensions to return. However, it seems wrong to consider NATO as a single bloc. Indeed, the alliance take its decisions unanimously, so it seems relevant to analyze the policy between NATO and Russia through the bilateral relations of the members of the organization. The combination of these elements on the international scene brings either a rapprochement based on shared interests or a confrontation based on differences. This analysis makes it possible to highlight the political, economic, and security dynamics leading to a balance of powers, both European and global. ; L'arrivée au pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine marque un tournant politique pour la Russie. Ce pays, qui a connu une perte de puissance sur la scène internationale pendant la décennie 1990, affiche désormais une volonté de retrouver sa place historique de grande nation. Face à elle se trouve l'OTAN, créée jadis pour s'opposer à l'URSS. Après la guerre froide, cette organisation de défense s'est étendue dans l'ancien espace soviétique avec l'adhésion des États d'Europe centrale et orientale. Une telle situation, combinée à la stratégie russe de retrouver sa puissance, notamment dans son étranger proche, fait que les tensions reviennent. Toutefois, il semble erroné de considérer l'OTAN comme un bloc unique. En effet, en partant du fait que les décisions de l'Alliance sont prises à l'unanimité, il apparaît pertinent d'analyser la politique entre l'OTAN et la Russie à travers les relations bilatérales des ...

Vladimir Putin's rise to power marks a political turning point for Russia. This country, which experienced a loss of control on the international scene during the 1990s, now displays a desire to regain its historic place as a great nation. Faced with it is NATO, formerly created to oppose the USSR. After the Cold War, this defenseorganization expanded into the former Soviet space with the accession of the Central and Eastern European states. Such a situation combined with the Russian strategy of regaining power, especially in its neighbor, is causing tensions to return. However, it seems wrong to consider NATO as a single bloc. Indeed, the alliance take its decisions unanimously, so it seems relevant to analyze the policy between NATO and Russia through the bilateral relations of the members of the organization. The combination of these elements on the international scene brings either a rapprochement based on shared interests or a confrontation based on differences. This analysis makes it possible to highlight the political, economic, and security dynamics leading to a balance of powers, both European and global. ; L'arrivée au pouvoir de Vladimir Poutine marque un tournant politique pour la Russie. Ce pays, qui a connu une perte de puissance sur la scène internationale pendant la décennie 1990, affiche désormais une volonté de retrouver sa place historique de grande nation. Face à elle se trouve l'OTAN, créée jadis pour s'opposer à l'URSS. Après la guerre froide, cette organisation de défense s'est étendue dans l'ancien espace soviétique avec l'adhésion des États d'Europe centrale et orientale. Une telle situation, combinée à la stratégie russe de retrouver sa puissance, notamment dans son étranger proche, fait que les tensions reviennent. Toutefois, il semble erroné de considérer l'OTAN comme un bloc unique. En effet, en partant du fait que les décisions de l'Alliance sont prises à l'unanimité, il apparaît pertinent d'analyser la politique entre l'OTAN et la Russie à travers les relations bilatérales des ...

Les contributions des forces alliées aux opérations militaires menées dans les Balkans, en Méditerranée, en Afghanistan et en Irak témoignent des responsabilités mondiales de plus en plus lourdes qui incombent à l'OTAN. Pour les assumer, l'Alliance s'est lancée dans un processus de transformation et de renouvellement. Cette évolution s'est clairement dessinée au sommet de Washington de 1999 et s'est poursuivie au sommet de Prague de novembre 2002. La refondation complète des structures de l'OTAN représente une nouvelle vision pour l'Organisation et un bouleversement par rapport à l'objectif essentiel original de l'Alliance. La création de cette nouvelle OTAN s'est faite par étapes successives. C'est en grande partie grâce à la mise en place de la Force de réaction de l'OTAN (NRF) et d'une nouvelle structure de commandement que l'OTAN est maintenant en mesure de gérer le nouvel environnement de sécurité et de mener de nouveaux types de missions. L'OTAN a su ainsi s'adapter à ce nouveau contexte stratégique, notamment en acceptant des engagements, d'une part, envers de nouveaux objectifs comme la lutte contre le terrorisme et d'autre part, dans de nouveaux théâtres géographiques comme en Afghanistan, en Irak et au Darfour malgré une transformation en cours de réalisation. ; Abstract: The contributions of the allied military forces carrying out operations in the Balkans, in the Mediterranean, in Afghanistan and in Iraq are clear illustrations of the increasingly onerous tasks assumed by NATO in various regions of the world. In order to properly fulfill these duties, the Alliance has undertaken a process of transformation and renewal. This trend, initiated at the Washington Summit of 1999, was continued at the Prague Summit of November 2002. The complete reorganization of NATO's structures represents not only a new vision for the Alliance but also a disruption of sorts in light of the original fundamental objective of the Alliance. The setting up of this «new» NATO has been incremental and it is mainly due to the creation of the NATO Response Force and to the introduction of a revised command structure that the Alliance is now able to react to the new security environment and to pursue new types of missions. Consequently, despite the transformation it is presently undergoing, NATO has been able to adapt to the changing strategic context by accepting missions such as the fight against terrorism and by entering new theatres of operation such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Darfour.

Brexit represents a potentially significant change to the way transatlantic relations have been organized since WWII. The "special relationship" between the United Kingdom and the United States, born out of historic and cultural affinities, has come under strain, since America traditionally relied on Britain as its political and economic entry point into Europe. This paper will explore the new, post-Brexit system of multiple partnerships and alliances that is likely to emerge. While the US will be keen to maintain strong bonds with the UK, it will have no other choice but to reinforce ties with other European Union countries. Over time, a second "special relationship" may develop, as the US pivots towards the Franco-German axis as a key interlocutor for transatlantic relations. Germany has already begun to assume leadership for transatlantic economic and trade issues, having re-emerged as the dominant economic power and key decision-maker in the EU under Chancellor Merkel. Likewise, a noticeable Franco-American rapprochement has occurred since France re-joined NATO in 2009; more recently, France has become the US ally of choice for military cooperation, which will be key for the future evolution of transatlantic security relations. After Brexit, France will be the only major military force in the EU, a nuclear power possessing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with an experienced army that has intervened in crisis points around the world. The UK has emphasized that Brexit will not change its strong commitment to European security as a key NATO ally. Nevertheless, after it leaves the EU, Britain will no longer have a seat in the European Council or the Council of Ministers where member states coordinate their national foreign and defense policies. This paper will examine the opportunity that this presents for continental European countries to enhance defense cooperation with the US within the NATO framework, especially following Russian interventionism in Eastern Europe. Because of Brexit, the UK is ...

Brexit represents a potentially significant change to the way transatlantic relations have been organized since WWII. The "special relationship" between the United Kingdom and the United States, born out of historic and cultural affinities, has come under strain, since America traditionally relied on Britain as its political and economic entry point into Europe. This paper will explore the new, post-Brexit system of multiple partnerships and alliances that is likely to emerge. While the US will be keen to maintain strong bonds with the UK, it will have no other choice but to reinforce ties with other European Union countries. Over time, a second "special relationship" may develop, as the US pivots towards the Franco-German axis as a key interlocutor for transatlantic relations. Germany has already begun to assume leadership for transatlantic economic and trade issues, having re-emerged as the dominant economic power and key decision-maker in the EU under Chancellor Merkel. Likewise, a noticeable Franco-American rapprochement has occurred since France re-joined NATO in 2009; more recently, France has become the US ally of choice for military cooperation, which will be key for the future evolution of transatlantic security relations. After Brexit, France will be the only major military force in the EU, a nuclear power possessing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with an experienced army that has intervened in crisis points around the world. The UK has emphasized that Brexit will not change its strong commitment to European security as a key NATO ally. Nevertheless, after it leaves the EU, Britain will no longer have a seat in the European Council or the Council of Ministers where member states coordinate their national foreign and defense policies. This paper will examine the opportunity that this presents for continental European countries to enhance defense cooperation with the US within the NATO framework, especially following Russian interventionism in Eastern Europe. Because of Brexit, the UK is ...

Brexit represents a potentially significant change to the way transatlantic relations have been organized since WWII. The "special relationship" between the United Kingdom and the United States, born out of historic and cultural affinities, has come under strain, since America traditionally relied on Britain as its political and economic entry point into Europe. This paper will explore the new, post-Brexit system of multiple partnerships and alliances that is likely to emerge. While the US will be keen to maintain strong bonds with the UK, it will have no other choice but to reinforce ties with other European Union countries. Over time, a second "special relationship" may develop, as the US pivots towards the Franco-German axis as a key interlocutor for transatlantic relations. Germany has already begun to assume leadership for transatlantic economic and trade issues, having re-emerged as the dominant economic power and key decision-maker in the EU under Chancellor Merkel. Likewise, a noticeable Franco-American rapprochement has occurred since France re-joined NATO in 2009; more recently, France has become the US ally of choice for military cooperation, which will be key for the future evolution of transatlantic security relations. After Brexit, France will be the only major military force in the EU, a nuclear power possessing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with an experienced army that has intervened in crisis points around the world. The UK has emphasized that Brexit will not change its strong commitment to European security as a key NATO ally. Nevertheless, after it leaves the EU, Britain will no longer have a seat in the European Council or the Council of Ministers where member states coordinate their national foreign and defense policies. This paper will examine the opportunity that this presents for continental European countries to enhance defense cooperation with the US within the NATO framework, especially following Russian interventionism in Eastern Europe. Because of Brexit, the UK is ...