RSS

February 26, 2010

Matthias Jungjohann

Westerwelle is talking about a nuclear free world because that topic is more popular with the voters than Afghanistan. He is a populist. He was opposition leader for a long time. He has not adapted to his new government job yet. He still needs to learn that he is responsible for German foreign policy. If he continues with this irresponsible and populist policy, he will turn out to be Germany's worst Foreign Minister since the Second World War.

Regarding your questions: Yes, the alliance is drifting apart, but that is normal since there is not anymore a huge common threat, like the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Only such existential threats lead to the kind of unity NATO once had.

The Americans shall be happy that Europe is increasingly taking care of Europe, meaning that the US does not have to come over here again, like during the Cold War or the Balkan wars in the 1990s.

February 26, 2010

Michael Schultz

Germany is not the problem. The Bundestag just voted for continuing the ISAF mission.

The Netherland's upcoming withdrawal from Afghanistan constitutes a real problem, since the Dutch have been very successful in Afghanistan.

I agree, the Obama administration does not expect much from Europe anymore.

February 26, 2010

chris poelker

Europe has become pacifist because they don't feel any threats. If U.S.A. pulls out of Europe, I think the Russian Bear will raise its ugly head again though. I don't think it will attack Europe but it will blackmail Europe any chance it gets with strongarm tactics.

February 27, 2010

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

Diverging priorities and risks perceptions are not a problem until some of the allied countries will not proceed to irreversible steps towards a new kind of security culture, one totally different and against and not just complementary with euro-atlantic security agenda.

February 27, 2010

Member deleted

It seems to me that the American Governments have sometimes been too susceptible to long term manipulation even by marginal lobbies at the expense of American people offending their allies as well as other countries.

This weakness needing promt attention, I think, has been the greatest shortcoming of the US foreign policies since the beginning of the 20th century onward.

Failure to find viable & agreable remedies to this ill behavior -even though it may be stemming out of her electoral system- will be likely to let it hinder developing a more peaceful world order meanwhile weakening the super power outlook of the USA.

This is actually a kind of self-trapping a world power & her allies needlessly...

Thanks,
Mustafa

February 27, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

@Mustafa: good comment!

The big military spending and "heroic" fighting action is sold as strength, but in fact, it is a sign of weakness and moral decline. When Europe provided the resources to "secure its interests", as Robert Gates now suggests, it slided into two world wars. When we look back, the question remains: what did we really fight for?

In the future, we might face collapse of several developing countries and as consequence perhaps something like a new Great Migration. However, if that happens even the best army won't help us. The Romans couldn't stop the Great Migration, and the Americans won't either, only perhaps with the nuclear option, but you don't need a big army for that.

In my opinion, the growing conflicts in the world have a very simple and material reason: that there are less and less resources for more and more people. In a way, the western way of life is at the cost of others on this planet. Especially the US are dependent on a steady flow of fresh resources from all the world.

This was very different when NATO was founded. At that time the resources of the American continent seemed inexhaustible and the US had no real interest to compete with the Europeans for control of the rest of the world, which perhaps explains how they could bring former enemies together (not to forget the Soviet threat, of course).

And now? There is no common threat like the Soviet Union any more, so we have created the "terrorists", who are everywhere and nowhere, to have an enemy which gives us some legitimation to establish a neo-colonial economic empire in order to maintain our way of living.

That way leads directly into a new world conflict, and I assume Europeans feel this unconsciously, while many Americans seemingly lack empathy for these disastrous colonial experiences.

I hope that the EU will manage to keep away from these new war theatres and focus on economic change and education, because only this will preserve a chance for the developing countries to master the coming resource crises (water, oil, food).

I wouldn't bet any cent on the US if they continue as they do. There is a high likelhood that the military bubble will blast as it did in the Soviet Union. Without China's help, perhaps the US (and the whole western capitalism) had already gone bancrupt last year.

February 28, 2010

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

Although not an entirely new phenomenon, divergent priorities not only pose a serious challenge to the operational capabilities and effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance, but furthermore challenge a consensus among the various NATO-member states on NATO’s role in the 21st century. As the collective defence organization is moving to become a collective security organization, diverse perceptions on national security within its 28 member states even threaten the current endeavors conducted by the so called group of eminent persons to formulate a comprehensive strategic framework that is to be similarly interpreted by all NATO-members. Differences with regard to the interpretation of the collective defence clause – Article 5 – only underline one set of challenges that the transatlantic alliance will continue to face.

A careful balance between collective defence and collective security is yet to be found, but much needed in order to (re)establish and maintain solidarity and cohesion within the alliance.

February 28, 2010

Member deleted

@Bernhard

At the time the NATO was established, the economical production of the USA alone accounted for around 60% of the world’s economy which kept on declining along with the ecomic rise all around the world down to about 20% at the turn of the milennia.

The NATO having such a gigantical power among her members ended up developing a administrative, political & military structure structure which had to be based on this fact. Neverthelessly this upper hand possesed by the USA inevidably eroded over time leading probably some types of diappointments in the Americans and disillusioments in her allies.

It seems to me that if the USA insists on conserving this initial structure of the NATO, then the organization is likely to fall apart eventually leaving an organizational vacuum at least in the western world.

Among a few of viable options the NATO has available to select from, I think she needs to place greater emphasis on the following three modes of change:

Firstly, the NATO member countries should terminate undermining each other either openly or underhandedly and try to develop or re-establish full harmony within the organization herself. In order to accomplish this the leading politicians in the North Atlantic Community need primarily to free themselves from domestic electoral concerns and revert to sober policies.

Secondly, the assumption that it is vital to define or invent/create a common enemy, though non-existent, for perpetuation of the NATO should be terminated! Such absurd assumptions results in leading the NATO and/or some member countries to futile bloodshed, tears and wasting world resources by shadow boxing and creating only a build-up hatred instead of contributing to a peaceful world order.

Thirdly, the NATO needs to develop much nobler goals like joint space research, etc. rather than horrifying non-member countries with her out of proportion military and nuclear power.

In summary I think it is time for NATO to undertake a radical reforms in her basic philosopy as well as her administrative, financial and military structure.

I would rather also add that I am a proponent of the fact that “practice of justice” is the magical basic principle for a long lasting intrnational relations, too.

Mustafa,
Thanks

February 28, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

@ Mustafa: I agree with all you say.

Perhaps one can formulate it that way: the US assume that their interests are necessarily those of her allies, and so e.g. the European unwillingness to fight in Afghanistan is seen as lack of respect and thankfulness, "letting the Americans do the dirty work".

In contrast, Europeans feel like feudal vassals of the US. If the US wage a war, the allies have to pay tribute or to serve in the army, as medieval kings organised their empires.

As a European, my view might be biased. But I see the major responsibility of NATO's current critical situation with the US, who seemingly think they can use the alliance for their strategic goals as it pleases them, abusing her dominant military power to force her allies to contribute to missions (like Afghanistan) which are not in their interest, and then wondering about half-hearted support.

Probably the core of the problem is the missing common enemy, but you are right that this point is obsolete now. NATO should focus on a defensive mission only without clear enemy, and become again what it used to be: a point of stabililty and trust in the world. But the occupation of a country at the Hindu Kush is not defensive.

Due to the "defense of NATO's interest abroad", tensions with other major powers like Russia and China are growing, and the organisation is slowly mutating to an agressive power. In this context, the strong opposition in Germany against the Afghanistan mission is partly due to fears that this mission (meanwhile labeled "non-international combat", to avoid the word "war") is used to first circumvent and then terminate the ban of aggressive warfare in the German constitution.

I find it very unwise that the US is considering to eventually abandon NATO and engage in new forms of security partnerships. I'm sure that Europe could deal with its security challenges herself, but is it really in the American interest to leave Europe? If Europeans manage their security issues themselves, this will mean that the US will tremendously lose influence in Europe, not to say they will be out of the European game, which is a high price to pay for some more freedom with adventures like in Afghanistan or Iraq.

As a European, I am very happy with the US managing most European security concerns. I think this a main reason for the good relations between most European countries and ensures that another competition for European hegemony like during the World Wars will not take place.

NATO should be re-defined and preserved as defensive alliance and point of stability in the world, and not be allowed to mutate to a feudal club of warring crusaders.

March 1, 2010

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

Dear Bernhard,
I think we are already in a kind o escalation path. I notice President Obama issue with US-EU summit and and Baroness Ashton missing the EU defense ministers and NATO Sec. Gen. Rasmussen. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7041984.ece
As I said, is not a problem to have diverging priorities but still to have dialogue. More serious concern would be to notice an increasing lack o dialogue between both organizations.
From this article seems that even EU need a redefinition stage after Lisbon. Even more problematic is the definition of the "european voice" inside of NATO having in mind all these recent evolutions inside EU. The re-definition of NATO is not a matter of if or what to re-define, but whom? To make a long story short, If US is ready to re-define NATO, are Europeans ready to re-define their trans-atlantic agenda? How many months shall we wait to see a new step on behalf of Europe on this matter?

March 1, 2010

Member deleted

Dear Dr. Bernhard,

Many thanks for your kind response to my comments which mainly consists of my preliminary thoughts and concerns on the topic at hand for discussion. No need for me to say that I agree with your views on this very critical matter to a great extent.

In order to make more worthhile analyses I think we may save time by approaching this multi-dimensional international question concerning both our countries as well as EU & Europe; and maybe also beyond that the humanity as its related directly to the World Peace:

Let us first define first what we expect from NATO in the short, medium and long terms. Next the problem under examination may be divided into smaller fragments and after finding viable answers to each fragment, they can all be put together to get a panoramic view of the answer. It is also possible of course to revise this panoramic view to integrate all fragments neatly.

Please incidentally note my conviction a priori that the best guarantee for peace for our peoples is to achieve a peaceful world order in general.

This concept has been the motto of the Turkish people since the establishment of the modern Turkish Republic by Mustafa Kemal ATATURK having had been put into words by himself as: "P e a c e in the W o r l d and P e a c e at H o m e."

Thanks,
Mustafa

March 1, 2010

Joe Noory

This is NOT a function of 'Mars and Venus', as if that saying hasn't been banalized by overuse, this is a matter of the United States having to compensate for what the Europeans cannot make themselves do, even though they said they would be in Afghanistan 'for the long haul', and were, in 2002, begging not to be left out.

The United States, you night recall, was told emotively to "not go it alone". Since then, the committed forces in Afghanistan (which include some highly dedicated Europeans and British Commonwealth partners) have had to endure a never-ending circus of complaints, qualifications to their prior committments, and taxing high-level political conferences that lead no-where.

If you ever wonder why the United States (even with it's serious partners) are compelled to "go it alone", in spite of castigations and passive-aggressive public commentary from the populous continental European governments, then this is why.
That message maelstrom is nothing short of a display of Borderline Personality Disorder, and is likely perceived to take the place of participation and action by the polulations in these states.

It's painfully obvious, given that the number of academics, NGO types, think-tankers, and the like who are vociverously focussed on the subject outnumber the troops and aid workers committed in Afghanistan by many of these participants.

March 1, 2010

Olaf Theiler

I will try to answer the questions raised by the Editor and in the same time to provide some initial reflections on the comments made so far.

1. NATO has been threatned througout all of its existance by the diverging interests of its members - and even more by the lack of trust in the solidarity of its members despite these diverging interestes. Nethertheless, it has been also able to overcome these crisis again and again by shaping a minimum consensus among all of its members that secured the minimum required level of solidarity and engagement from all participiants. This was never fully satisfying its critics and enthusiasts but preserved very successfully the Alliance and its core cohesion.
2. In the current security environment with its unpredictable and multifaced risks and potential threats - including some dangers more imminate but in the same time limited in scope and range - it is much more difficult to reach this minimum consensus. The largely expanded number of members makes it even more difficult for NATO to remain focused. But in the same time, due to exactly this difficult security environment, again and again the NATO membersstates have been willing to maintain their cohesion in Non-Article5 Operations even despite sometimes heavy turmoil on the domestic fronts. The Balkan-Crisis has shown this more than once.
3. Afghanistan is a completly new and different challenge for NATO, stretching the level of diversity in threat/risk perception and solidarity needs much further than in any other crisis NATO had to manage before. But in my personal opinion this is only part of the game. NATO's members are defining the limits and scope of their solidarity as much as their capabilities and political will. If NATO fails to maintain its cohesion in Afghanistan after 8 years of struggle and lot's of political as much military mistakes from all sides (European as much as US), this will not mean the end for the Alliance, but instead a more precise definition of its limits. Exactly the difficult security environment will ultimatly lead to a continuation of engagement in NATO since no Nation will risk to lose this valuable tool in a time of uncertainty.
4. President Obama will go through a very common cycle of overestimation, dissapointment and fruitless search for alternatives, followed by unavitable realism and acceptance of the minimum support by his European allies. We have seen this with several US presidents since the End of the Cold War, with Bill Clinton almost as much as with George W. Bush. With Obama now just entering the dissapointment phase, we will likely see attempts to find other sources of support in the near future (his attempts to engage with Russia and China might already have been the first) and it is no risk to predict almost total failure for them.
5. This leads to the fourth question by Joerg Wolf on the potential abandonment of NATO by the United States. The United States under President Bush Junior had been quite tempted and even tried that in 2001 before they had finally to quit this fatefully path in 2005/6 and returned the no less difficult try to convince and coerce their European Partners into more support for either Iraq or Afghanistan. Thereby they tried to push the limits of solidarity a big step further than Clinton had done in 1994 and 1999 in the Balkans.
6. For me, it is no surprise that exactly the Nations most engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Netherlands and Canada - UK seems to be an exeption here - are the first ones to drop out of the coalition in Afghanistan due to growing domestic resistance. With their Governments attempting to maintain the transatlantic link despite all the internal European dissent over Iraq and Afghanistan, these nations took on the biggest share of the burden and the highest risk in the field. But since they have not been able to make their transatlantic case more attractive or reasonable than the big brother in Washington, they also failed in convincing their European partners to take on more burdens or risks. So in the end they payed a big portion of the price for the overextension of Allliance cohesion.
7. The current dissent - basically the result of an overextension of solidarity in 2002/03 - is only the aftershadow of the crisis in 2003/04 and has been declining since 2006. Therefore, NATO should be able to define the current level of solidarity and cohesion much more precise in the upcoming strategic concept. This could then be a new starting point for renewed Alliance cohesion until new developments (domestic as much as global) will ultimately cause a new challenge for this minimum consensus. But then again, NATO will probably be up for the challenge again.
8. As long its members still hope to gain more from continued inclusion than from abandoning the Alliance in the long run, this will be the case. The unpredictable security environment will be helpfull in preserving this minimum consensus while a new existential threat probably will cause new and even deeper frictions instead. Since the level of threat(perception) will differ much more among NATO memberstates, a new imminent threat will only call for the formation of new alliances inside of beyond the bounderies of today's NATO.

March 2, 2010

Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community, Editor

@ Olaf Theiler

Thank you so much for this detailed response!

March 3, 2010

Member deleted

I just stumbled over this piece by CFR.org. Striking to me are the recommendations made by Mr. James M. Goldgeier that read much of recent TAC coverage and its respective least common denominator. In summary all about Article IV and V and matters of thread perception, such mentioned here also. In general I agree to Olaf here!


Recommendations
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NATO_CSR51.pdf


NATO remains valuable to both the United States and Europe, and the
member states should continue to invest in the alliance.

NATO provides the United States with legitimacy for action that
does not accrue to coalitions of the willing, and it allows the Europeans
to project power in a way that they cannot do on their own.
NATO must recognize that Article V’s pledge that an “armed attack”
on one shall be considered an attack on all is insufficient to defend its
members against the range of threats that can undermine the national
security of member states. In the strategic concept, NATO members
should affirm that any action initiated by an external state or nonstate
actor that threatens the political and economic security or the territorial
integrity of a NATO member requires a collective response through
Article IV or Article V.
These potential threats to security include a terrorist or missile
attack, an external effort to topple a regime or occupy territory, a cyberassault
that threatens to paralyze a nation’s political and/or economic
infrastructure, or a cutoff of energy supplies. NATO members must also recognize that Article V threats can arise from outside the continent. The issue is not “Article V versus expeditionary”; the issue is how to respond to common threats to security
regardless of their origin. If it fails to do so, the alliance will lose its central
role in American national security policy.


NATO should strengthen its partnerships with the EU and with non-
European democracies.

To ensure the resources necessary to respond to nonmilitary threats, the United States should push those European nations that are members
of both NATO and the EU to help break down the barriers to cooperation
between the two institutions to allow for more joint action,
particularly in the areas of conflict prevention and crisis management.
European partners should promote Turkish access to the European
Defense Agency and the European Security and Defense Policy in
order to help mitigate the obstacles to EU-NATO collaboration.
The United States should strengthen its mission to the EU, particularly
by adding personnel to work on defense cooperation and ensure
that the American missions to the EU and NATO are working closely
together. It should install a deputy at each mission responsible for liaison
with the other mission.
Locating an EU-NATO institutional forum for cooperation in Paris
would take advantage of France’s return to NATO’s integrated military
command and give France an incentive to find ways to build a stronger
EU-NATO partnership.
In a world of global threats, NATO must enhance its ties with partners
around the world, including the major Asia-Pacific democracies,
by providing opportunities for more collaboration at NATO headquarters
and at SHAPE for those partners in areas such as missile defense
and the crisis response force. An alliance that sees itself merely as transatlantic
in focus is an anachronism of the twentieth century, when the
threats to Europe came from Europe, and when there were few democracies
outside the region.
As Australia has demonstrated, nonmember nations can provide
important military contributions. In any future mission in which a nonmember
provides significant military assistance—at least one thousand
troops—that country should be part of the operational planning
process, even if it only has nonvoting status in the deliberations.
To be relevant to future threats, NATO will need to focus its attention
increasingly on developing maritime and missile defense capabilities.


The United States should foster greater collaboration between NATO and
Russia.

The United States should promote practical cooperation that might
build greater confidence between the alliance and Russia.
The NATO-Russia Council should expand the joint exercises and training operations
to deal with issues such as terrorism and nuclear safety. And if
Europeans can manage to fulfill their commitments to the NATO
response force, then NATO could propose a joint NATO-Russia
response force to manage emergency situations across the region.
The Obama administration’s missile defense decision opens the
opportunity for collaboration with Russia, including joint assessments
of the missile threat from Iran. The United States should actively seek
Russian partnership in a joint missile defense.
At the same time, NATO needs to reassure east European alliance
members that Article V ensures their defense against Russian intimidation.
That means that NATO needs to take seriously contingency
planning for the protection of the Baltic states, particularly Estonia and
Latvia. NATO should also reaffirm its commitment to its open-door
policy on enlargement in Europe and maintain its current policy of an
annual review for Georgia and Ukraine.