RSS

June 28, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I have argued in other comments at the Atlantic Community that NATO will continue to serve a meaningful function with respect to internal European security issues. However, skepticism is the only reasonable position to hold with respect to NATO's long-term influence on security issues external to Europe itself.

While NATO has played an extremely significant role in Afghanistan, the complexity of this situation and the lack of clairty of what an end goal will be (especially with the US withdrawal timeline looming and the significant changes of personnel from McChrystal to Petraeus) leaves many questions about NATO's viability in other extra-European theatres open.

Meanwhile, fiscal austerity within many NATO nations (Germany being the most prevalent recent example) seems to show that Europe will actually spend far less on its military capabilities in the near term than it has as it grapples with debt and various fiscal imbalances. This combined with public attitudes already reticent to engage in military conflict of any kind cannot be seen as a portent of overly positive European support for the alliance as it relates to key security issues emanating from the Middle East or Asia.

NATO will survive in a form, but it will not be in a form that addresses many of the multifarious security needs of the US. Consequently, the US will find itself seeking cooperation with other nations and regions more and more with India and Japan likely to be paramount in the near to medium term.

June 28, 2010

Stan Sloan

Dear Greg,

Thank you for your observations. Your statement of the constraints on NATO certainly reflects contemporary realities. However, they will not necessarily determine the long-term viability of the alliance. NATO has never "guaranteed" anything. Article V was given meaning during the Cold War by the deployment of forces in ways that would ensure the involvement of all allies in case of a Warsaw Pact attack. Today, it provides a framework for cooperation when the member states agree that they should work together to deal with a security challenge. The financial limitations on European contributions would be present whether or not NATO existed. However, without the "habits of cooperation" in NATO, the current coalition effort in Afghanistan, however, flawed, would not have been possible. If NATO cooperation should diminish, so would the ability of the United States to form "coalitions of the willing." NATO has provided the background of cooperation that makes such coalitions effective.

You are right to say that he United States will seek cooperation from other countries, but that was the case even during the Cold War. The NATO framework, in fact, has made it easier for non-member states to join in operations that otherwise would have been simply bilateral cooperation with the United States and much more vulnerable to domestic opposition. India and Japan will be important relationships for the United States, but these countries have their own issues: for example, Japan's awkward position with other regional actors as well as its self-imposed constraints growing out of the Second World War, and India's continuing conflicted relationship with Pakistan.

The fact is that the transatlantic relationship embodies the values and goals of the member states as well as any treaty relationship could. This sets NATO apart from other relationships based on more pragmatic, less principled, foundations.

I would not argue that NATO will be the only venue in which the United States pursues its interests. But I do argue that the burden of proof is on those, like yourself, who argue that NATO will be of diminishing importance. Before either the United States or the European countries will give NATO a lower priority in their security calculations they will have to be convinced that alternative arrangements will better serve their security interests.

June 28, 2010

Claudiu Dan Degeratu, EURISC Foundation, Silver Contributor (64)

Prof. Sloan,
Today the issue of what kind of NATO would be desirable for all of us ? is for the Europeans a matter of institutional building. Of course we have different motivations being old or new members. And we are busy with plenty institutional building agenda: post-Lisbon treaty corrections, future EU Diplomatic Service, relations with new emerging powers and so on. More to come? Yes, some of us, Germany, France and Poland welcomed a new framework for crisis management EU-Russia Joint Committee. I am sure that this initiative will be one of the priority together with the Medvedev's proposal for a new security architecture in Europe. To tell you frankly, nobody are waiting for an Obama's proposal for the European security but for sure everybody are waiting his own proposal on transatlantic relations. This is why I consider your article as an important one for the possible solution.
What possible scenarios could we envisaged?
First, a multi-tiered NATO with Russia in and a strong transatlantic relationships.
Second, a downgraded NATO with a permanent US-EU Joint Transatlantic Security & Defense Joint Committee mirroring EU-Russia Joint Committee
Both scenarios have some common ingredients:
- political will,
- enhanced transatlantic agenda; political and economic-industrial agenda extended with security and defense chapter.
- strategic reassurance for the European allies
- a common position on CFE.
In conclusion, if we consider that the only one solution is to invite Russia in NATO as a full member this I must say that this is not a permanent solution but rather the final solution.

June 29, 2010

Member deleted

I have read the above article several times in vain trying to find if there was any reference to why NATO has been involved in the Middle East at all having caused the deaths of well above 2 million civilians up to now.

Thus acquairing permanent enemies ranging from 20 millions to 50 millions for nothing in return but disrupting the “W o r l d P e a c e” needlessly!!!

Does anybody have any idea about the rationale behind the NATO’s invasions of overseas countries resulting in deaths of many millions of innocent civilians?

June 29, 2010

Unregistered User

@Mustafa,
To answer your question:
People who rule/dominate the USA today want to rule/dominate the planet. In that context American foreign policy makes sense.

June 29, 2010

Member deleted

@ Unregistered User - June 29, 2010,

Dear Mr./Ms.,

If your answer reflects the reality, then I must regretfully have to comment here that these people smell naivete, ignorance as well as sheer stupidity as they seem to be driving themselves to self-destruction along with all others!!!

It is very unfortunate that such suicidal minds seemingly have access to some types of power -whether in the open or behind the curtain- to effect the destiny of mankind for reasons not even related to self-interests…

June 29, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

The NATO question is becoming more and more intriguing, especially since people like Mr. Kaplan
are proprosing NATO as a permanent blanket over Europe.
It would also be informative to define our security threats, facing us, which we had not had a hand in creating ourselves.
I must accept , that I have to take off my shoes and prepare for a body inspection when boarding a plane in the US. I have a hard time however to accept a luxuriated military command such as NATO, when NATO troops in Afghanistan are held at bay by " Kalashnikovs".
The troops were supposed to look for Al Qaeda, which by the account of the CIA amounts to only
50 to 100 operatives now. It must be pretty hard for the Afghans to understand, that after we desperately asked for Taliban's help to kick out the Russians, we now ask for the help of the Afghan people to kill the Taliban. One should also compare the rights of Afghan women during the Russian peirod and compare to our period of influence.....In opium production, we really are hard to beat.......
There are many examples like this. But what does it really mean:

Mr. Mustafa's advice by an unknown writer, that certain interest groups rule and dominate the USA
or with other words take advantage of America, while their long range objective is to dominate the world, is quite interesting, but not surprising.

9/11 put the spotlight on America, the America of the American people.Thomas Jefferson in 1802
predicted that if we let banking institutions have control over our currency through inflation and deflation, they will be more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies and our children will not be
allowed the land our fathers conquered.

We even surpassed this prognosis in our continued conquest by forcing sovereign deficit and debt to the point of insolvency and certainly the recent recession was not without purpose.

The recent US Census also showed, that in a few yaeas the white population in America will be in the minority,...... while the deficit will continue,....but will have to be paid by the majority, which will also
be held accountable.

The dynamics will be changing and the mountain of US debt may convert into a situation, where
the rest of the world has to protect ( defend ) itself from America, the problem.......

NATO simply needs a new and territorial identification and shouldn't just float around, like in Afghanistan.


HRF

June 29, 2010

Kazimierz Wiesak, Pennsylvania State University, Silver Contributor (73)

USA spends more on its military than the next six biggest military spenders - China, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, and France - combined.

We should look at facts first, then build theories based on those facts.

The theory that USA spends so much on military in order to defend its security looks not very serious to my mind. There must be some other motives.

The only country outside Europe that can threaten Europe's security is USA. I know that sounds strong but no other country, or a combination of countries, has sufficient military might in order to threaten Europe's security.

June 30, 2010

Djörn Eversteijn, Chairman of the Netherlands Atlantic Youth, Gold Contributor (77)

Indeed the transatlantic relationship - despite its imperfections - will remain of importance in the 21st century. In an increasingly uncertain international environment, a cooperative and comprehensive approach is required to respond to increasingly complex security challenges.

As Mr. Sloan points out, the transatlantic partnership between the United States and Europe has been strained, to some extent, by American unilateralism under the Bush Administration. After the inauguration of President Obama, the argument went, the transatlantic disconnect, infuriated by the American decision to forcibly change the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, would be finally restored. However, the campaign in Afghanistan proved - and still proves to be problematic in this regard.

In addition to the debate about member states' contributions to relative secure or very insecure provinces, and the consequences of national caveats, the Dutch, Canadian, and more recently British decisions to terminate their respective presence in Afghanistan, American weariness regarding Europe's commitment to the international efforts in Afghanistan is understandable.
In this regard, the argument that transatlantic cooperation might be improved once the Europeans are convinced that contributing to international security efforts alongside the United States generates European influence in American decisionmaking in matters affecting Europe's security, is ill-conceived, for Europe already fully appreciates that it cannot secure its various interests, be they economic, political, or military, alone.

I would argue that public opinion towards a member state's commitment to Alliance efforts is as a crucial factor regarding the level of cooperation within the alliance, and thus the effectiveness of the Alliance's efforts around the globe.

July 1, 2010

Hans Reuther-Fix

The Chairman of Netherlands YATA insists that the transatlantic relationship(NATO) in its present form will indeed continue and respond to increasingly complex security challenges with a cooperative and complrehensive approach.
NATO in itself, has an historic component within the organization, which explains the chairman's
insistance of continuity (under US command) without amendments.
The military debacle in Afghanistan shows that old warriors and their desire to be favorably remembered in the history books must give place for new strategies, which must combine a civil and military authority, mostly under civilian leadership.
As the chairman knows, NATO has a civilian and a military arm, of which the civilian arm is presently neglected.
But when the present GS of NATO tried his diplomatic skills in Russia on participation of Russia in a NATO-Russia ABM set-up over Europe, he clearly overstepped his authority.
Europe has now a President and a Secretary of Security and Foreign Affairs, which simply means
for NATO to respect the Lisbon Treaty and butt-out.
NATO needs to reconstitute irself within the complex of sovereign countries united in a Union.

When at the G20 meeting in Toronto, China and others issued a stern warning for the US and Europe
to get their( economic ) house in order,-- decoupling from the US currency is in progress.
It simply means for us, that NATO cannot be justfied anymore within our econmic model.

I think everybody must agree that the potential alone of creating military autocracies is not acceptable.

HRF

July 3, 2010

Eva Maria Krockow, GIZ, Ghana, Platinum Contributor (209)

The NATO is a very peculiar organisation with regards to its political structure and organisation. It places a high emphasis on national sovereignty, only allows for unanimous decision-making, and lacks formal voting procedures (for example regarding its Secretary General). It thus, importantly differs from other international organisations, which can impose legally binding directives upon their member states (EU) and have formal organisational structures and institutions with clearly defined responsibilities (UN). Whereas NATO’s flexibility of purpose and structure has ensured its survival after the end of the Cold War, it, nevertheless, ultimately serves to restrict its scope in international politics.

NATO has already effectuated military missions in Afghanistan, the Mediterranean Sea, Kosovo and Africa, and a further extension of its areas of operation might, in fact, exceed its political and military capabilities. Geographically based in North America and Europe, it is lacking legitimacy when commanding international military deployment with increasingly questionable justifications. Furthermore, the sovereignty and diversity of its member states has resulted in a lack of political unity: The highly varied military commitment and strategies employed by different countries have not only been criticised by the US: British media, for example, took offence at the merely defensive deployment of German soldiers in Afghanistan, forbidding the support of British troops in their active search and fight of the Taliban.

In some of the previous posts the possibility of NATO’s loss of political significance and / or its disintegration was raised. I, on the other hand, consider it a constantly expanding force – not only in terms of member states but also pertaining to the military and geographical scope of its operations. Whilst recognising the importance of NATO as defence alliance of Western states, I am concerned it may overreach itself by overestimating its capabilities and influence.
Due to the lack of political unity, the missing political focus, and the inadequate legitimacy with regards to international, preemptive security missions, the NATO may face far more serious threats than mere disintegration.

July 4, 2010

Fred Bowman

In recent times Europe has been drawn into a few shaky conflicts and NATO was used as tool. The organization has become a growing problem for Europe in its current form. It must change or be replaced by another structure that can better serve our current needs.

July 5, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Greg,

If I recall right at all, the declared goal of NATO’s involvement in Afganistan was to get hold of Usame bin Laden for punishment and not at all to be fighting the Taliban.

There has been rumours in the media that he is deceased already whether it may be taken seriously or not but nobody seems to be able even to guess where he might be.

Similarly the declared original goal of NATO’s involvement in Iraq were to overthrow Saddam & his regime. I think everybody knows that it has been achieved –however it is easily questionable why it was of such a great concern- a few years back already but the military forces are still keep occupying the other peoples land.

In both cases the NATO forces appear to be wandering around aimlessly in the Middle East having no well defined objectives. In such cases it is impossible for the commanders to reach any type success which may be called victory at all regardless of the legitemacy of the missions.

I personally have the impression that the vision of the US intellegentsia has been so blurred by the massive propaganda that they are experiencing great difficulties in thinking clearly to sort out the matters.

The end result of all these needless military involvements in the Middle East seems to be no worthwhile achivements -except causing blood, sweat & tears for all the parties involved in this mess over the last couple of decades.

July 5, 2010

Olaf Theiler, Political Scientist, German Armed Forces, Platinum Contributor (173)

Prof. Sloan, congratulations to this article and to your book.
So far no one has made the point on the persistent "transatlantic bargain" so clear and easy to understand than you did. The basic line of NATO's enduring existence is and remains the will of all members to maintain at least a limited form of influence on each other. This is said with special emphasis on EU-US relations of course, but nevertheless also true for others, including groupings like Turkey and Greece or the old game about a power balance between UK, France and Germany, even if this is only a marginal game next to the big one of EU-US relations in NATO.

Some additional thoughts on some of the comments made so far:

@ Hans Reuter-Fix
NATO is still existing because its members had (and have) still an interest in keeping it. This is not about the ability of any kind of bureaucracy to maintain its existence beyond necessity. If that would be the case, Nations wouldn't bother to pay the money any more. But in times of uncertainty and change, Nations want to have different options in order to be able to act according to circumstances, whatever they look like. NATO's shutdown was actually discussed in the early 90ties. In the light of events like the Second Gulf War and the beginning of the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia Nations understood on a very early stage that peace did not broke out immediately after the End of the Cold War and that neither the CSCE nor the UN or EU would be able to do the trick if military force would be needed. That's why they decided to transform NATO rather than delete it.
And a footnote regarding the Lisbon Treaty: Unfortunately, this treaty did not solve the leadership problem of the EU, nor did it make the institution more capable of acting in a crisis. At the same time, it is clear that both institutions are basically instruments in the hand of their member states. Therefore, if the North Atlantic Council would come to an agreement with Russia on a joint Missile Defense for Europe, EU Nations would have already subscribed to it since most of them are sitting a the NATO table (with veto power). If the EU could come to such an agreement with Russia, NATO would in fact be part of the deal since it would be the same territory protected. The only problem here is, that the US as basic provider of most of the technology and money in this process would not be at the table of an EU discussion with Russia and therefore, it is not really likely that the EU would be the chosen path to reach such an agreement. That is the way policy works, if you like it or not….

@ Eva Maria Krokow
Yes, I think you are right to address the risk of overstretch for NATO with its limited forces and capabilities. But the current process of producing a new NATO Strategy is taking this into account and will probably include some lines calling for restraint and careful prioritization for any new possible mission for NATO. Already today we witness a reluctance of most Nations in NATO to get engaged in more complex and demanding tasks like fighting piracy. Unfortunately, this leaves NATO and the International Community (including the EU, US and lots of other nations) only to fight the symptoms instead of the root causes of piracy. A long lasting and demanding new effort for nation building in Somalia seems unrealistic today and for the foreseeable future. This highlights another risk, that the Western Community repeats its mistake of Rwanda in 1994, when they hesitated to act due to their bad experiences with a UN-Mission in Somalia shortly before. We will have to strike a balance here, however that mike look like.

@ Mustapha Celic
I think I have said that before: NATO is not identical with the United States. All member states of NATO are sovereign nations and are allowed to act on their own or in coalitions of the willing if they feel the need to do so and are willing and able to conduct operations outside of NATO. The United States decided to do so in 2003 in Iraq despite of strong criticism by some European partners in the UN and NATO. NATO was not engaged in the War against Saddam Hussein, although some of its members decided to joint the U.S. led coalition. That means that any suggestion that NATO did take part in the Iraq War is factually wrong.
After the war, most NATO nations felt the need to contribute to the stabilization efforts in Iraq and to help to train security forces of the new Iraq government. That is what NATO is doing in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1546 and based on a consensus decision in the North Atlantic Council since 2004. Not more (like military engagement), but also not less. And personally, I think this suits the security interests of all NATO members including Turkey that also approved this decision and participates in training efforts with 44 soldiers, the second largest contribution.

July 6, 2010

Dovan Bingham

Gentlemen,

An Armed Forces officer says that NATO is fine. We can relax now.

July 12, 2010

Stanley R. Sloan, Atlantic Community Initiative, Platinum Contributor (201)

Olaf,

Thank you for your supporting observations. I believe even NATO skeptics would find my book useful, even if they disagree with some of the conclusions. By the way, the book will be published this week (I have already seen an advance copy) and should be available on my publisher's web site (www.continuumbooks.com) as well as on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.

Best wishes,

Stan Sloan

July 13, 2010

Member deleted

Even though it may sound “utopical” to most people at first glance, the best insurance for the survival of mankind at this stage of material & technical advancement seems to be to promote the concept of World Peace earnestly for all in all arenas by placing much greater emphasis on C o n f l i c t P r e v e n t i o n.

On the other hand insistence on keeping on with the international chess game in World Politics trying to win at the expense of others may eventually lead, somewhere along the line, to cause irreversible losses to all the parties involved as well as complete destruction of the mankind.

I personally have to consider such an approach to World Politics “s u i c i d a l” due to fact that some players may inevitably end up having to prefer mutual destruction to their own destruction alone.

I humbly presume that the view outlined above may be deserving serious attention & consideration by all those who may be concerned before being too late.

July 14, 2010

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

"And, there is a legitimate American complaint: the Europeans have always to some extent been free-riders on the defense commitments and efforts of their North American ally. Just as other Americans argued during the Cold War that NATO burdens were inadequately shared, voices today are rising to complain about the inability of NATO allies to support US security "

This is often cited in discussions such as these, but I like to question whether this is indeed a legitimate complaint. Because it reduces security to a solely military issue. If anything, the EU has shown with itself that security is far more than military issues in the sense of Schuman's originally idea of making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible - on the basis of economic interdependencies.

But aside from economic issues, there are also political ones in breaching propaganda and indoctrination. In this, for example, I'd think that Brandt's visit to Warsaw was worth more than scores of radio free europe emissions because it directly undermined the idea of the eternal enemy Germany on the spot.

Rather than saying that the Europeans were "freeriders", I see them as a counterbalance to an overly military-focussed approach to security that was not only healthy but necessary to break up entrenchments.

July 16, 2010

Stanley R. Sloan, Atlantic Community Initiative, Platinum Contributor (201)

Oliver,

You are absolutely right that security is produced by non-military as well as military efforts. The United States used its "soft power" quite effectively during the Cold War, so it was not sitting on the non-military sidelines in this period. Because I recognize the growing importance of non-military contributions to security, I have for many years suggested that the NATO and EU nations should work together more effectively in coordinating such efforts. However, the alliance would not survive a division of responsibilities in which the United States took care of the military side of security while the Europeans did the soft stuff. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfect place and the use of force by terrorist groups against innocent civilians cannot be dealt with simply by offering foreign assistance and trade. There will be conflict. There will be killing. The pain of this reality must be shared by Americans and Europeans alike, if they want to cooperate to protect their populations and way of life.

This suggests that both the United States and the European allies need to put forward effective military and non-military efforts. It is legitimate to argue that the United States has relied too much on the use of force; it is also legitimate to argue that the European Union nations have tended to put too much trust in their non-military contributions to security. But the alliance relationship helps balance the overall effort, helping make it clear to the United States that it needs to use its non-military capabilities more effectively and to the European allies that they need to maintain the capacity to contribute meaningfully when the values and interests of the allies are threatened.

Respectfully,

Stan Sloan