In 1947 Winston Churchill stated, “The UK is with Europe but not part of it.”
“We are linked to Europe but not included in it,” He added. This signifies that that the U.K. keeps privileged relations with the U.S. in security cooperation. This cooperation has the strong interlocking networks in operating NATO since the very beginning of the military security organization. Charles de Gaulle then proposed to the U.S. to establish the trilateral cooperation system of NATO, with a view to reviewing in common an allied command for all theaters of operation. And he suggested a common decision on nuclear weapons in the collective security body. His suggestions were all refused. The U.K. was in favor of the trilateral cooperation system backed by the U.S., France and itself. It was because a U.S. commander exclusively should control U.S.-supplied nuclear strategic arms in the collective security body.
Later, Charles de Gaulle said the U.K. was “a salesman or Trojan horse to the U.S.” As a strengthened measure of NATO, the U.S. and U.K. concluded the Nassau agreement that allowed the latter to be equipped with nuclear deterrent and Skybolt missile program, to the exclusion of France. The U.K. in favor of “Atlanticism” within NATO has been long at odds with France. This inequitable security cooperation ties have escalated over the last seven decades or more in Europe.
The English people voted for the exit out of the European Union in the mix of true and false campaign slogans. The June Brexit referendum, which lured many British voters to vote “leave,” mainly is ascribed to the overly exaggerated campaign rhetoric, such as perfect protection of Queen Elizabeth II, the respect of British sovereignty, the continued use of the sterling, a further betterment in social welfare and the blocking of immigrations from the Middle East that sees with it an intensive inflow of terrorists’. These slogans were manipulated malignly by a small number of euroskeptics. Euroskeptics have not seriously considered security matters of both the U.K. and EU. They have been concerned about only their selfish national interests in short-term perspectives. Their interests are short-sighted and bent. In other words, they neglected the historical achievement of positive peace and stability achieved by the founders of the EU in postwar Europe.
What impact will the Brexit then bring the EU in the years ahead? What transformation of security in the EU is supposed to unfold?
As a nuclear power and the world’s fifth-largest economy, the U.K.’s exit will cause uncertainty of security in the EU. The U.K. has played an important role in European security, although it has tilted toward the U.S. So, Britain has taken the nature of Atlanticist rather than “Europeanist.” To be sure, the country has implemented the very important role of balance of power before and during the Cold War. Up until the present, the country has played a pivotal role of balancer to Germany. Given the present regional order, Germany is supposed to resume an influential role in maintaining peace and stability, and in moving forward the integration process. The rest of the member states will continue to most likely play a minor security role.
Operation of power changes just like the moves of a pendulum. Nothing prevents such changes in power from arising in international relations. No one can deny the stark realism closely based on the deep rooted nature of power. In this sense, professor Han J. Morgenthau once expounded that the search for power on the international stage was like that of evils aimed at dominating others and often downgrading their identity,
In 1998, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair participated in the St. Malo Summit with former French President Jacques Chirac. The summit was to advance the creation of European security and defense policy, including European military force of implementing autonomous actions. The summit was a firm response to the deadly armed conflict in Kosovo in the late 1990s. As a result, a force of over 60,000 troops was created in 2003 in the Helsinki conference. Judging from the disappearance of the U.K. in the security domain, the perspective of EU security will most likely be uncertain, The EU has lost a key factor for European security and defense policy at the moment. Such a regional order may weaken the system of peace and stability, while the U.S. as a transatlantic power is supposed to rearrange and strengthen again the capability of NATO.
Russia is, among other things, going to increase its influence on the EU, in an attempt to develop trade relations with its member countries by mitigating economic sanctions or by removing them. It will adroitly profit from this uncertainty to advance deep into the EU. It should be remembered, for example, that Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula by force, consequently affecting the eastern part of Ukraine through some kinds of sabotages. So the country turned fast the peninsula into a Russian forward operating base. You should not, moreover, forget that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 by a large scale of land, air and sea forces. These invasions on small states in Eastern Europe heavily have relied on the EU and the U.K. to stand up to the 19th century type of imperialist policies of Vladimir Putin.
Such imperialist policies by Putin overturned in a single move the post-Cold War European order on which fragile peace and stability had rested. You need to closely warn that Putin might initiate military operations in efforts to liberate ethnic Russians in the Baltic States, or eventually in Eastern Europe as well. Such operations may most likely jeopardize the regional order.
Unless the shock waves stemming from the Brexit referendum is resolved as early as possible, a vacuum of power will occur in Europe as a whole, which eventually will link to internal and external threats to both the EU and U.K.’s security. Viewed from this uncertainty, there appears to be an increasing possibility that Russia would make a speedy spillover of its reverse impacts on the EU. In short, the search for integration, not for evils, will continue in the EU.
By Heo Mane
Heo Mane is a professor emeritus at Pusan National University and the president of the Korea-EU Forum. — Ed.
