BERLIN — The Libyan war is not good news for NATO. In spite of the upbeat speeches by NATO foreign ministers last week in Berlin, only 14 of the 28 member countries militarily support the no-flight zone and actions to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. Only six of them are carrying out airstrikes.
With support from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, the NATO mission in Libya is now a coalition of the willing, which analysts say undermines the cohesion of the alliance. But compared with other missions undertaken by NATO, the alliance this time moved with unprecedented speed in beginning the operation.
The Libya crisis is even worse news for Europe and its military ambitions. It shows more clearly than ever how most E.U. countries are unwilling to match their defense ambitions with any broad strategic goals.
“The decision by many European countries not to contribute to the NATO mission bodes ill for Europe’s foreign and security policy,” said Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, the European center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Particularly damaging for Europe was Germany’s decision to abstain in the U.N. vote that authorized the no-flight zone over Libya. That was a huge disappointment to the United States and particularly to Britain and France. “Germany positioned itself outside the Western consensus,” Mr. Techau added. In doing so, he said, Berlin was undermining attempts by Europe to become a convincing defense player.
Britain and France had lobbied the U.N. Security Council to authorize the no-flight zone. Once authorized, with the United States, Canada and Denmark, they began the airstrikes.
Then came the crunch. The Obama administration did not want to continue leading the mission. It has enough on its plate with Afghanistan. Besides, Libya is considered Europe’s backyard. So for the first time ever, the United States asked NATO’s European allies to take over the command and control of the mission.
At first, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, balked at giving NATO that role, hoping that France could take the lead. But eventually he had to realize that Europe was not going to become a defense player in its own right with France at the helm.
“Libya confirmed France’s worst beliefs,” said Clara Marina O’Donnell, a defense expert at the Center for European Reform, a research organization in London. “It could not rely on its E.U. partners.”
It was a blow to France’s ambitions. “France’s goal of leading Europe in defense matters is receding,” said Bastien Irondelle, security expert at Sciences Po, the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris. “For his military aims, Sarkozy will now have to go outside the E.U. That means coalitions of the willing.”
It is not for want of trying by France, and Britain, to shift Europe from its preference for being a “soft power” — providing humanitarian aid and building civilian structures — to becoming a “hard power” with military force as an option.
They knew as much during the 1990s when the European Union, with its diplomacy ridiculed, had no idea about how to stop the war in the former Yugoslavia. It had to rely on the United States and NATO to end the fighting. Europe’s paralysis prompted Britain and France in 1998 to launch the Union’s European Security and Defense Policy.
Britain, then under Prime Minister Tony Blair, believed a stronger Europe was vital for the trans-Atlantic relationship, because most E.U. missions would depend on NATO’s military assets. The Union, therefore, would not become a competitor to or grow independent of NATO.
France, then led by President Jacques Chirac, thought differently. “It always wanted Europe to become a strong defense player, a European power,” said Mr. Irondelle.
Despite the ideological differences, London and Paris worked together. In 1999, they pushed the Union to agree that by 2003, the bloc should have the ability to deploy a force of 60,000 troops within 60 days and sustain it for a year. It never happened.
London and Paris in 2003 then came up with the idea of E.U. battle groups, or expeditionary forces. These units would consist of 1,500 soldiers each and be deployed within five to 10 days. These units have still to be tested.
With prodding from London and Paris, the Union managed in 2003 to agree on a European security strategy designed to foster a global strategic culture among European countries. The reactions by the Union to the changes sweeping across the Middle East showed how the Union was out of its depth.
The Union’s shortfalls in defense, including expenditure and military capabilities, persuaded Britain and France to forge last year a far-reaching agreement in defense cooperation. It included sharing aircraft carriers and collaborative research for both countries’ nuclear deterrent systems.
“The Anglo-French accord confirmed the frustration in London and Paris over E.U. defense efforts,” Ms. O’Donnell said. She added that European defense could become even weaker as long as these two countries continue to cooperate so closely.
Yet opinion polls across Europe show that citizens want the Union to have a stronger defense and security policy to underpin the bloc’s support for human rights. But paradoxically, polls also show that the public is unwilling to support military action or fund any increase in defense spending to defend the bloc’s values.
The main reason for this discrepancy is that Europe, as a bloc, does not have a strategic culture. “Only Britain and France have a strategic culture and natural outward approach,” said Mr. Techau, from Carnegie Europe.
That could change — if Germany changed.
“Germany could lead others if it adopted a more open approach to foreign policy. But Germany has neither the muscle nor the strategic scope to think in global terms, unlike Britain and France,” Mr. Techau said.
Indeed, Chancellor Angela Merkel shows no inclination to take any lead in shaping Europe’s defense, or, for that matter, foreign policy. Therefore, say analysts, the United States, Britain and France will continue as they did during the Libya crisis, forging coalitions of the willing that will leave Europe and NATO weaker.
