Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "The Case for a New Atlantic Community Treaty"

The Case for a New Atlantic Community Treaty

Stanley R. Sloan: NATO cannot meet the security needs of the United States and Europe. I propose a new cooperation framework among all NATO and EU states, with a focus on non-military teamwork.

NATO is by no means sufficient for the security needs of the United States and Europe, however necessary it may be for contemporary security requirements. Following the Iraq crisis in U.S.-European relations, the United States and Europe need a major initiative to help restore mutual confidence in transatlantic cooperation. Functionally, the Euro-Atlantic nations need a broader cooperative framework for security, one that includes all NATO and EU members and which concentrates on all areas of non-military cooperation.

A Changing Agreement for a Changing Security Landscape
The new leaders of the alliance in the United States and in Europe should make it a high priority to create such a framework after the election of a new American president. They could do so by directing the preparation of a New Atlantic Community Treaty to be signed by all NATO and EU members. The new treaty then should be opened for signature by all democratic states that can subscribe to and defend treaty values and goals.

The treaty would create an Atlantic Community Treaty Organization for non-military security cooperation that would complement NATO and the EU. Such a structure would be ideally suited for dealing with the complex issues raised by globalization and the post-9/11 terrorist and security challenges. Regular consultations would take place among all members and candidates of NATO and the EU, following patterns already established in both organizations.

Blending of Powers
To advance such a framework for non-military security cooperation, Europe must show a greater willingness to blend its impressive soft power capabilities with hard power to provide coherent answers to tomorrow’s challenges. And the United States must build a better balance between soft and hard power instruments in its foreign and security policy tool kit. In the long run, the effective marriage of U.S. and European soft and hard power capabilities could help reduce potential military challenges, and enhance the ability of the world community to deal with post-conflict scenarios in ways that promote stability.

A healthy and productive future for the Euro-Atlantic relationship is neither guaranteed nor doomed. The quality of the relationship will depend to a great degree on the choices made by leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. Recent years have demonstrated how bad choices can drive the relationship into crisis. Lessons should be learned from this period and applied constructively for the future.

Stanley R. Sloan is the founding Director of the Atlantic Community Initiative, a Visiting Scholar at the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs at Middlebury College, and President of VIC–Vermont, a private consulting firm. For the past three years, he has taught a Winter term course on transatlantic relations at Middlebury College. His most recent book, NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community: The Transatlantic Bargain Challenged (Lanham, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), contains a suggested draft for the New Atlantic Community Treaty discussed in this article.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

June 29, 2007

Philipp Rock, Holger Haibach, MdB, Silver Contributor (34)

I like this comment! What's this?

I am astonished that this article completely ignores the existence of the OSCE which in essence provides the transatlantic security framework that the author calls for. European and American countries should rather invest in and promote such organisations that already exist and have a proven record of success than embark on any grand schemes with an uncertain outcome.

June 29, 2007

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

I like this comment! What's this?

The OSCE is a fine organization and does excellent work within Europe. However, the OSCE does not meet the needs of NATO and EU members for cooperation on non-military security measures beyond Europe, where the most severe security challenges arise today. The OSCE's mandate is limited to Europe and it is very unlikely that Russia, for example, would wish to see that mandate expanded.

June 29, 2007

Valentina Klausen, -, Silver Contributor (33)

I like this comment! What's this?

Stanley-

thank you for your insightful article, I too believe that the EU should become more engaged within the global sphere. Now that the integration process is somewhat at an end (let's face it Turkey still has a long road to travel...), and other countries, such as Croatia, are not too big in order to make a huge impact. I think now might be the time, and as Michael John Williams suggested on Monday, to increase defense spending within the EU. The dispute over the missile defense was a clear sign, that Europe needs, and wants to be able to take care of itself.

July 2, 2007

Robert Shawley, University of Iowa, Gold Contributor (99)

I like this comment! What's this?

Hi Stanley - while I agree with you that the OSCE is not the right forum to adress global security concerns, it has made excellent non-military contributions beyond Europe's borders. The OSCE's election monitors, some of the best in the world, have been very active in Central Asia other non-European contexts. Same goes for its police-training and democracy promotion activities.
While the OSCE lacks the geographical scope necessary for 21st century security concerns and is hampered by organisational restraints such as a consensus-based voting system, one has to be very careful that a new transatlantic treaty would not compete with already established excellence in certain fields.

July 3, 2007

David Vollmer, Uni Mannheim, Silver Contributor (26)

I like this comment! What's this?

Stanley,
What exactly should this proposed new non-military security organisation do?
I trust you have more in mind than just another arena to chat about today's challenges.

Why not make NATO more political and give NATO some non-military tasks as well?
NATO needs them in order to succeed in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Chancellor Schroeder suggested such political reforms at NATO in February 2005, but was heavily criticized by the US.

@ Robert.
I agree. Besides, the OSCE is not just a involved in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but also cooperates with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. These countries are not members of the OSCE, but they are OSCE partners of cooperation. This partnership could be extended. That is easier than setting up another organisation for that purpose.

July 4, 2007

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

I like this comment! What's this?

David,
One reason why NATO has never been given the mandate to operate beyond the military sphere is that French governments, seeing NATO as a US-dominated organization, have consistently opposed giving NATO more responsibilities. That is one reason why I suggested a new organization in which members of the European Union could represent themselves collectively, when appropriate, and individually, when they choose. The forum would not impinge on national sovereignty, but would provide opportunities for all NATO and EU countries to develop strategic approaches to security issues and cooperative approaches to the use of non-military national and collective capabilities when necessary. I don't have the space here to explain further, but. If you wish to see more, please refer to my book "NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community" (2005) where I explain the concept in detail.

July 6, 2007

David Vollmer, Uni Mannheim, Silver Contributor (26)