RSS

The Real Challenge for NATO

James M. Goldgeier | Council on Foreign Relations | April 2010

While the guarantee of territorial integrity of a member state under Article V of the NATO treaty remains relevant today, it no longer suffices to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Article V was drafted with an eye to the threat constituted by the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War. It stated that an armed attack upon the territory of a member state constituted an attack on all alliance members.

Sixty years later an armed aggression against a NATO member country's territory has become extremely unlikely. Today's threats are more diffuse in nature. NATO today faces an entirely different set of challenges, from cyberwar to terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons to piracy. Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of authoritarian regimes represent new dangers, too. Threats such as those to member state's energy security may at first glance appear to impact mainly its economic interests, but they have profound security ramifications as well. It should be a matter of indifference to NATO whether these threats originate with state or non-state actors. In any event, that issue is entirely irrelevant to the potential damage to the alliance's interests, which could be immense.

The greatest danger for NATO however remains the possibility that the United States will lose interest in the alliance. A lack of strategic vision and unity among member states could well lead to the alliance losing its significance in today's security environment. Today NATO still plays a central role in legitimizing many American operations abroad. In order for matters to remain this way, much more needs to be invested in NATO politically. Relations between NATO and the EU need to be intensified. It would be a good idea to set up a Euro-Atlantic Forum in Paris for example, in order to strengthen French interest in the alliance. The integration of Turkey into the EU needs to be pursued vigorously as well, in particular through the European Defense Agency. Cooperation projects with non-European partners such as Australia and Japan should receive more attention, too, in view of their beneficial nature. The relationship with Russia needs to be upgraded as well. Given the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program, cooperation on a missile defense program should be welcomed. In terms of responding to non-military threats, NATO would do well to consider working more closely with non-governmental organisations and even private corporations.

This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "The Future of NATO" orginially published here by the Council on Foreign Relations.