In line with the use of force concept in diplomacy, the United States has developed a new military doctrine and is pursuing a policy opposite to the Monroe Doctrine, which was introduced in 1823. US President Monroe, who claimed "America for Americans" liberated America from European colonizers as part of his foreign policy vision, which foresaw the use of force where necessary, and initiated a new wave of colonialism. Consequently, the US did not refrain from supporting coups in South America, which the US had an eye on for its natural resources. With this policy, the US had declared that the whole of the Americas was theirs.

Under the banner of an encroaching communist threat that spread following the Second World War, the US implemented a strategy that sought to influence states that were strategically significant and/or rich in natural resources via indirect or regional interventions during the Cold War. Vietnam comes to mind first. Following the end of the Cold War, American neo-cons, who realized that the US had no real competition, took the Monroe Doctrine one step further to mean the "World is for Americans". Iraq and Afghanistan are today's Vietnam.

Without a doubt, the seemingly unstoppable war machine is the most significant factor in the US's use of force. With a 600 billion dollar defense budget, approximately 47% of global defense spending, the US has a significant arsenal of nuclear warheads and military power; and the way it looks from many parts of the world, the US is ready to use its nuclear power when and wherever necessary.

A Quest to become a Global Power: Where is the EU now?

Europe's response to the US's use of military force concept for political and economic aims was the establishment of the European Union, which emerged in the 1960s as a bid to challenge the US. However, when we look at the EU's current situation, the picture is bleak.

Various experts on transatlantic relations have repeatedly pointed out that the EU needs a military force if it is to become a convincing powerbroker. Such commentary only intensified following the US occupation of Iraq and the rise to prominence of the preemptive military force concept. Such views were echoed by various European officials. The irony behind such plans is the perception that the US only recognizes, respects, and responds to military might. European politicians, who became more convinced of this in the early 1990s, initiated the process of establishing a strong European army.

Consequently, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg established EUROCORPS in 1992. This force was put into action in Bosnia, Macedonia and Congo as a peace force. In August 1994, the force assumed the ISAF command in Afghanistan. Poland joined the force in 2009. EU states like Austria, Greece, Italy and Romania, and non-EU members Turkey and the US, promised to provide additional corps or logistics units to the force.

Europe's Military Power

Currently, EUROCORPS has a 5,000 strong French-German brigade under its control. In addition to this brigade, deployed in Mulheim, Germany ready for action, the Corps has two armored and mechanized brigades from both Belgium and Spain and a mechanized brigade from Poland. These units were placed under national command during peacetime.

In 2004, the EU Council decided to establish a force of 131,000 strong. However, even if all 22 EU member states who promised units for this new force live up to their promises, the European army could reach a maximum of only 60,000 troops. The most striking feature of the plan is the target to achieve operational capacity independent of any US support. Accordingly, the European army would have the ability to mobilize in 60 days and conduct operations for a year in the theatre of war.

Although taking steps closer to a true and synchronized European military force is seen as necessary to protect the continent's security and strategic interests, the US is critical about the process. The main criticism revolves around the EU's internal contradictions and the persistent challenges that remain unresolved due to domestic divisions on a host of issues.

According to US experts, the establishment of a military organization that is at once parallel to NATO is likely to create command and planning structures that are also in competition with each other.

In addition, such a military organization would harm NATO, which has achieved more determining results than the European Peace Force, especially in Bosnia. It is more likely that European states will prefer to invest in this competing structure rather than NATO in the future. Furthermore, the inclusion of France, a nation which has tried to marginalize NATO for years and followed a policy that aimed to weaken the organization, to NATO's military wing with high level commanding positions is only expected to heighten tensions. Without a doubt, while France has rejoined NATO's military command and assumed a role in key decision making processes, it may simultaneously follow a different set of policies with the objective of eventually developing a European army.

At this point, it's worth mentioning the views of Margaret Thatcher voiced earlier on the issue. She had pointed out that the European Union could only realistically move closer to its political and military priorities at the risk of damaging the transatlantic alliance. Back in 2000, she described the creation of the EU Rapid Reaction Force as a "monumental folly", adding that it makes no military sense at all and threatens to divide and destroy NATO. Any such arrangement constitutes a luxury for Europe, which the continent cannot afford and stands to jeopardize European security, not consolidate it. Furthermore, establishment of such a force would make the building of military alliances within the Western world against global threats a more daunting task.

To counter the above arguments, pro-European army politicians put forward their own idealistic line of defense; insisting that NATO is a joint defense organization but that the European army will be designed as a tool for crisis management. Moreover, they say, this army would be expected to intervene in challenges that NATO would not be willing to commit to, thereby undermining any claims that a NATO-EU clash of authority is inevitable.

At this point, we have to ask whether a European army would be able to increase Europe's defense capabilities or merely end up as a hurdle to European security. Following the end of the Cold War, European states shifted from the development of heavy units towards a focus on small, light and highly mobile units. The ability of any future European army to meet a possible Russian threat is questionable.

A Shrinking Europe's Shrinking Military Power

In a world where the arms race is not a bygone trend, that the would-be global power Europe has cut its defense spending ahead of other global powers is significant. Despite the economic crisis, arms procurements have increased by 4%. The US spends approximately 600 billion dollars, in accordance with its vigorous armament strategy, followed by China with 85 billion dollars and Russia with 60 billion dollars.

On the other hand, nearly all significant European states have cut back their defense spending. The United Kingdom is expected to cut defense spending by 25% this year, lowering spending to 45 billion dollars. Italy's cut is at 7% and Spain at 4%. Furthermore, Germany has continuously been decreasing its defense budget over the years.

It would not be farfetched then to say that Europe will never transcend its role as a soft power, and has little chance of defending itself against serious threats.

At this point, we need to touch upon the situation of Turkey vis-à-vis the EU. During the Cold War period, Turkey took on the significant risk of countering approximately 22 Soviet divisions and was the main shield against threats to Central Europe. In short, Turkey stepped in to step up Europe's security. As a result of Turkey's support where Europe was almost certainly set to suffer from its security weaknesses, the EU invited Turkey to join the Union, without any objections or sidestepping based on claims of cultural differences. However today, Europe's delay and stall policies towards Turkey that run in parallel with its own marginal interests, as well as its contested policies on Greece and Armenia, are raising more than just eyebrows in Turkey-but real questions as to whether EU membership is in Turkey's interests, not the other way around. A Europe hampered down with its security gaps and vulnerabilities cannot sustain its security without Turkey and the United States.

In the not so far future, EU states, which are in economic, social and military decline, will need Turkey, on the rise and with greater sway over the fate of the region, on their side, despite the disputes and thorny issues that remain today.

Ali Külebi is Director for Political Affairs and International News at ART (EURASIAN TV). He may be contacted at akulebi@yahoo.com.