Section 8. Europe
1. General Situation
Many European countries recognize that the threat of a large scale invasion by another nation has disappeared.
At the same time, new security issues potentially affecting Europe have been identified, including regional
conflicts, the rise of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Following the end of the Cold War, European countries have been striving to stabilize the security situation
through efforts to enhance and expand the frameworks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO: 26
member states) and the European Union (EU: 27 member states). In addition, many European countries have
been making efforts to improve the capabilities to respond to aforementioned new issues, while reducing and
rationalizing their armed forces. (See Fig. I-2-8-1)
Fig. I-2-8-1 European Security Organization (as of May 31, 2006)
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) (55 countries)
The Council of Europe (46 countries)
Andorra
San Marino
Lichtenstein
Monaco
Macedonia
Switzerland
Croatia
Albania
Serbia and Montenegro
Bosnia-Herzegovina
EAPC
(Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council)
(49 countries)
EU (27 countries)
Malta
Cyprus
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Ireland
Former Warsaw Pact Organization (Former WPO)
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (12 countries)
NATO (26 countries)
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Russia
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
Latvia
Rumania
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Greece
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Italy
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxemburg
Spain
Portugal
Western European Union (WEU)
(10 countries)
Slovenia
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Turkey
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Belarus
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Kazakhstan
The Holy See
United States, Canada
Legends
: PfP members (23 countries)
: WEU associate members
: Countries that maintain a cooperative partnership with the WEU
: WEU observers
Note: The Warsaw Pact Military Organization was dissolved in April 1991. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved as a political organization after the signing of
the dissolution agreement on July 1, 1991 and ratification of the agreement by the parliaments of the member states.
— 86 —
Part I Security Environment Surrounding Japan
2. Enhancement and Enlargement of Security Frameworks
1. Enhancement of Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management, and Peacekeeping Functions
(1) Commitment to a New Role
Founded for the primary purpose of collective
defense among member countries, NATO has shifted
the focus of its activities to conflict prevention and
crisis management since the end of the Cold War.
This shift is reflected in the Strategic Concept of
the Alliance, reviewed in 1999, in which missions
such as conflict prevention and crisis management131
are added to its primary task of collective defense,
based on the view that various dangers difficult to
forecast, such as ethnic and religious conflicts,
territorial disputes, human rights suppression, and the
dissolution of a state, still remain in Europe and
surrounding regions.
Japanese Prime Minister Abe at the NATO Council
NATO has led the International Security [Cabinet Public Relations Office]
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since
August 2003, which is the first operation outside Europe, and expanded the area of its operations to the entire
Afghanistan in October 2006. The NATO Summit held in Riga, Latvia in November 2006 adopted the joint
statement that the contribution to the peace and stability of Afghanistan is its first priority132.
For Iraq, NATO has provided assistance for the training of Iraqi security forces in accordance with an
agreement reached at the NATO Istanbul Summit Meeting held in June 2004.
As NATO thus expands and prolongs its operations, problems are pointed out, including shortage in force
and tight financial conditions of NATO.
On the other hand, the EU, enhancing its own commitment to security issues, adopted its first document on
security strategy, A Secure Europe in a Better World-European Security Strategy, in December 2003. This
document regarded terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure, and
organized crimes as serious threats and showed the policies to be taken to deal with these challenges by
stabilizing the surrounding area’s situation and based on multinational cooperation.
The EU, in 2003, for the first time led a military operation to maintain public order in Macedonia using
NATO equipment and capabilities133. In the same year, the EU carried out its first peacekeeping operation
(PKO) outside Europe and its first operation without using NATO equipment and capabilities in Democratic
Republic of Congo. In recent years, the EU has engaged in activities in the areas of crisis management and
security maintenance134, such as taking over in December 2004 the activities of the Stabilization Force (SFOR)
deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina under NATO leadership.
(2) Pursuit of Military Capabilities Required for New Roles
NATO’s bombing campaign conducted against Yugoslavia in 1999 revealed a capability gap between the
United States and European countries. Given this, and based on the agreement reached at the NATO Prague
Summit Meeting held in November 2002, NATO has moved forward with reforms of its military capabilities,
including organizational transformation135.
— 87 —
As the core of NATO transforms to improve its capability, the launching of the NATO Response Force
(NRF), designed to respond swiftly to various types of crisis scenarios across the world, had started since 2002.
The Force was declared to be at full operational capability in November 2006 and performs operations utilizing
its special capabilities. For example, it transported relief materials when a large earthquake occurred in
Pakistan in October 2005.
The EU has tried to become capable of conducting peacekeeping and other military operations
independently in cases where NATO does not involve itself. The EU adopted Headline Goal 2010, and
positioned the Battle groups concept as the core of its future military approaches in 2004. (See Fig. I-2-8-2)
Fig. I-2-8-2 Trend of Capability Build-up of NATO and EU
Missions
Swiftly responding every situation
worldwide
Responding EU-led missions, such
as peacekeeping operations, in the
case where there is no intervention
by NATO.
Organization
• Standing joint task forces formed
by mainly brigade-scale ground
units (approx. 4,000 troops), plus
maritime, air and specialized units
• Size of force: approx. 25,000
troops
• Thirteen units of 1,500 troops will
be formed. Of these, two units can
be emergency deployed
simultaneously.
Capabilities
• Deployment begins within five
days of an order.
• Capability of 30-day operations
• Deployment begins within five
days of an order and is completed
within 15 days.
• Capability of 30-day operations
Operations
EU Battle Groups
(Combat Groups)
• One year rotation (in the case of
ground units, six months training
and six months on standby)
• Basic operational concept: to be
dispatched as an initial response
unit
• Segmentation of units is possible
according to the mission
• Units will be formed and on
standby by rotation within the
unilateral or multinational
framework.
Force building
NATO Response Force (NRF)
• Initiative was formulated in
November 2002.
• Prototype force was formed in
October 2003.
• Possession of initial operational
capability in October 2004
• Complete operational capability
was achieved in November 2006.
• Initiative was formulated in June
2004.
• Complete operational capability
was achieved in January 2007.
The EU also set up the European Defense Agency in July 2004 with the goal of improving the defense
capabilities of individual countries within a European-wide security defense policy. At the meeting of
Ministers of Defense held in March 2006, the ministers agreed that European Defense Agency will examine the
establishment of a fund for research and development. It is, however, pointed out that, due to such a fact that
seven countries expressed their intention not to participate, there is friction with member states that lead this
concept.
2. Stability by the Geographical Expansion of Security Frameworks
Since the end of the Cold War, efforts have been made to secure the stability of the so-called security vacuum
in Central and Eastern Europe by enlarging the NATO framework.
— 88 —
Part I Security Environment Surrounding Japan
NATO adopted the Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1994136, under which training exercises for PKOs and
response to refugee problems have been conducted.
In 1994, the Organization initiated the Mediterranean Dialogue to contribute to stability in the
Mediterranean region by provision of information and participation of Dialogue countries in NATO activities.
In addition, the 9/11 attacks in the United States promoted NATO and Russia to take steps to build a new
relationship from the need to address common security issues. Accordingly, it was decided to establish the
NATO-Russia council at the NATO-Russia Summit held in May 2002.
With seven countries (Rumania, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Slovakia) becoming
new members in March 2004, nearly all countries of Central and Eastern Europe have now joined NATO.
In a parallel development, 10 countries from Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czech,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, and Cyprus) joined the EU in May 2004, and Bulgaria
and Rumania in January 2007. (See Fig. I-2-8-3)
Fig. I-2-8-3 Enlargement of NATO and EU Membership
Original EU member countries
Joined EU by 1995
Joined EU in May 2004
Joined EU in January 2007
Original NATO member countries
Joined NATO by 1982
Joined NATO in 1999
Joined NATO in March 2004
3. Efforts by Individual Countries to Maintain the Capability to Respond to Various
Conditions
European nations attract more importance to military missions other than home defense, baring terrorism,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other new threats in mind. In defense build-up, they
emphasize transport capability for overseas deployment given their roles in NATO.
1. The United Kingdom
The defense policy of the United Kingdom is based on the 1998 Strategic Defense Review (SDR).
In this document, the United Kingdom defined the tasks of its military forces such as peacetime security
(support against terrorism of all kinds); security of the overseas territories; responses to crises both inside and
— 89 —
outside the NATO area, and has been committed specifically to reductions of nuclear forces, enhancement of
joint combat capabilities, improvements in NBC protection, increase of mobility and striking power,
improvements in service life, and greater efficiency in weapons/equipment procurement and others. In the
wake of the 9/11 attacks, A New Chapter was added to the SDR in July 2002, which provides guidelines for
dealing with international terrorism.
In December 2003, the United Kingdom released a defense white paper, Delivering Security in a Changing
World. It attracts attention that this white paper names international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, and failed states as major threats, and at the same time, emphasizes the need to strengthen
overseas deployment capabilities, to improve readiness, and to make further reforms, based on lessons from
military operations in Iraq137. According to the report on specific future military capabilities released in July
2004, even while pursuing force reduction and consolidating its major military and naval facilities, the United
Kingdom plans to enhance its ability to carry out target acquisition and attacks swiftly and accurately, to
improve its ground fighting capabilities so that it can more effectively conduct small- to medium-scale
operations, and to advance its anti-surface strike capabilities by upgrading its aircraft carriers and landing
ships. In the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in London in July 2005, the United Kingdom formed the
Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) against the terrorism.
In December 2006, the British government published a white paper titled The Future of the United
Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent to indicate the policy to maintain nuclear deterrent based on the submarinelaunched ballistic missile system beyond the 2020s138. The white paper also describes efforts for nuclear
disarmament, including the decision to reduce operational nuclear warheads from 200 or less to 160 or less.
2. Germany
The German White Paper of Defense was published after the interval of 12 years in October 2006. It states that
the main mission of the German Federal Armed Forces continues to be home defense and the collective
defense in traditional terms; however, that the mission most likely to come next will be conflict prevention and
crisis management, including the combat against international terrorism, considering the current situation that
new threats, such as international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are
expanding.
Germany is committed to using resources focusing on the enhancement of such capabilities as strategic
transportation, global-scale reconnaissance, and efficient and highly interoperable command in order for the
capabilities of Federal Armed Forces to meet the above mission, and moves ahead with concrete plans to
introduce A-400M transport aircraft and the synthetic aperture radar satellite SAR-LUPE. Also, Germany is
promoting the plan to restructure its military into integrated forces with the three functions of intervention,
stabilization, and assistance139. In addition, efforts are made to reduce the total number of personnel and to
relocate bases and facilities within Germany.
3. France
Nuclear deterrence, conflict prevention, overseas deployment of forces, and home defense (e.g.
counterterrorism) are the core elements in France’s defense strategy under its recognition that mass terror and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are a direct threat to French people.
France is building up its military capabilities based on the Model of the Army in 2015 which was released
in February 1996. Conscription was abolished and the military forces were reduced in accordance with the
Military Program Law for 1997-2002. Now, based on the Military Program Law for 2003-2008, France plans
to focus investments on the enhancement and improvement of command and intelligence functions,
deployment and mobility capabilities, action and striking capabilities in depth, defensive means, and others. To
— 90 —
Part I Security Environment Surrounding Japan
be specific, the plan includes the order of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and the acquisition of A-400M
transport aircraft, Rafale fighter aircraft, and Leclerc tanks as well as the construction of a conventionally
powered aircraft carrier in cooperation with the United Kingdom140.
4. Efforts toward Stabilization in Europe
1. Arms Control and Disarmament
The Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which formally entered into force in 1992, set
upper limits for five categories of weapons—tanks, wheeled armored combat vehicles, artillery, fighters, and
attack helicopters—for both East and West141, and stipulates that weapons in excess to these limits should be
eliminated. Under the treaty, more than 70,000 weapons of various types have already been eliminated.
Subsequently, given the changed strategic environment in Europe, the CFE application treaty was signed at
the OSCE summit meeting in 1999, which transformed the earlier limits for the East and West as groups into
limits for individual countries and territories142.
2. Confidence Building Measures (CBM)143
Talks on Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBM) have been held in Europe since 1989, and a
plenary meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in 1992 adopted the Vienna
Document 1992, which deals with annual exchanges of military intelligence as well as the notification,
inspection, and regulation of military exercises above the prescribed scale144.
The Open Skies Treaty145, designed to improve the openness and transparency of military activities carried
out by signatory countries and to supplement arms control verification measures by allowing reciprocal aerial
inspections, was signed by 25 countries in 1992 and entered into force in January 2002.
— 91 —