The Rebirth of European Security

  • Simon Duke
Part of the St Antony’s Series book series


Once born, the formal division of Europe into two heavily armed camps quickly overshadowed the WEU. In terms of armed strength and support it was apparent that NATO was very much the larger and more important structure. The WEU was further marginalised by the fact that the potentially important role of the quasi-supranational Armaments Control Agency (ACA) was never fulfilled, in part because the necessary economic integration needed to provide the infrastructure was not in place. Since the armaments control aspects of the WEU could not serve as its raison d’être, the WEU was left with its defensive role — one in which NATO was more proficient. The meeting of the six ECSC foreign ministers at Messina in May 1955 reflected the larger powers’ awareness that in defence and security matters NATO was undeniably the focus of west European efforts.


Foreign Policy Security Policy European Council European Economic Community European Parliament 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. ‘New Impetus for European idea’, speech by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, The Bulletin (Press and Information Office of the German Federal Republic, 4 Oct. 1956), quoted in Ma. Margaret Ball, NATO and the European Union (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1959), p. 403.Google Scholar
  2. These points are made in Douglas Johnson, ‘De Gaulle and France’s Role in the World’, in Hugh Gough and John Horne (eds), De Gaulle and Twentieth Century France (London: Edward Arnold, 1994), pp. 93–4.Google Scholar
  3. The memorandum is referred to in Sophie Vanhoonacker, ‘La Belgique: responable or bouc émissaire de l’échec des négotiations Fouchet?’, Res Publica, 1989 (4), Vol. XXXI, p. 515.Google Scholar
  4. Simon J. Nuttall, European Political Co-operation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jean Lacouture, De Gaulle: The Ruler 1945–70 (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991), p. 349.Google Scholar
  6. Quoted in Catherine McArdle Kelleher, Germany and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), pp. 140–1.Google Scholar
  7. The missile system had been viewed by Prime Minister Macmillan as the ‘key to Britain’s “special relationship” with the U.S’. Kennedy’s Ambassador to London, David Bruce, and the British Ambassador to Washington, David Ormsby-Gore, failed to warn Washington of the potential gravity of the cancellation of the agreement while Macmillan appears to have chosen to ignore the doubts about the technical efficacy of the Skybolt system voiced by U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. See Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 565.Google Scholar
  8. For a comprehensive overview of the changes in nuclear strategy during this period, and others, see Beatrice Heuser, NATO, Britain, France and the FRG: Nuclear Strategies and Forces for Europe, 1949–2000 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998), pp. 33–57.Google Scholar
  9. US General Accounting Office, Comptroller General’s Report to the Congress, Movement of American Forces from France, Department of Defense B–161507 (GAO: Washington D.C., 1967), p. 4.Google Scholar
  10. For general details of the Luxembourg compromise see, Derek W. Urwin, The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration since 1945 (New York: Longman, 1991), (2nd ed.), pp. 113–5.Google Scholar
  11. The debate was prompted by Senator Mike Mansfield in a series of debates between 1966–74. For full details of the debate see Simon Duke, The Burdensharing Debate: A Reassessment (London: Macmillan, 1993), pp. 53–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derek W. Urwin, The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration since 1945 (second edition) (London: Longman, 1995), p. 148.Google Scholar
  13. Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1982), pp. 716–7.Google Scholar
  14. Elfriede Regelsberger, Philippe de Schoutheete de Tervarent, and Wolfgang Wessels, (eds), Foreign Policy of the European Union (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997).Google Scholar
  15. Quoted in Panos Tsakaloyannis, The European Community as a Security Community: Problems and Prospects (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1996), p. 62.Google Scholar
  16. Geoffrey Howe, ‘Bearing More of the Burden: In Search of a European Foreign and Security Policy’, The World Today, Vol. 52 (1), January 1996, p. 23.Google Scholar
  17. Panayiotis Ifestos, European Political Co-operation: Towards a Framework of Supranational Diplomacy? (Aldershot: Gower Publishing Group, 1987), p. 358.Google Scholar
  18. Helmut Schmidt, A Grand Strategy for the West (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 61.Google Scholar
  19. G. Wyn Rees, The Western European Union at the Crossroads: Between Trans-Atlantic Solidarity and European Integration (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), p. 22.Google Scholar
  20. Alfred Cahen, in Michael Clarke and Rod Hague (eds), European Defence Cooperation: America, Britain, and NATO (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), p. 56.Google Scholar
  21. Quoted in Stephen George, An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 202.Google Scholar
  22. Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (London: Harper Collins, 1993), p. 745.Google Scholar
  23. For further details see, Timothy J. Birch and John H. Crotts, ‘European Defence Integration: National Interests, National Sensitivities’, in Alan W. Cafruny and Glenda G. Rosenthal (eds), The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond (Vol. 2) (Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1993), pp. 265–81.Google Scholar
  24. Quoted in Charles Krupnik, ‘Not What they wanted: American Policy and the European Security and Defence Identity’, in Alexander Moens and Christopher Anstis, Disconcerted Europe: The Search for a New Security Architecture (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), pp. 117–8.Google Scholar
  25. Hans van den Broek, ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Context of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference’, Speech at the Royal Institute for International Relations, Brussels, 4 July 1995, Studia Diplomatique, Vol. 48 (4), 1995, p. 32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Simon Duke 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Duke
    • 1
  1. 1.European Institute of Public AdministrationMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations