Five Models for European Security
Implications for the United States
ResearchPublished 1992
Implications for the United States
ResearchPublished 1992
This Note assesses five alternative security models that could emerge in the next 5-10 years in terms of how well they meet the U.S. objective of transnational stability in Europe. The Note finds that of the five models proposed, the overlapping security institutions model does best, because it preserves a political and military role for the United States, creates alternative links for U.S. involvement in Europe beyond NATO, demonstrates U.S. willingness to adapt to a stronger European role in security arrangements, and maintains flexibility to move to a number of different security models. The Note recommends that the United States develop a credible rationale for maintaining an integrated military command like NATO, encourage the expansion of the Western European Union's role as a bridge between NATO and the European Community, support the process of European economic and political integration, and encourage the use of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe as a pan-European forum for addressing the security concerns of the newly emerging democracies in the East.
This publication is part of the RAND note series. The note was a product of RAND from 1979 to 1993 that reported miscellaneous outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.