Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "NATO at a Crossroad"

March 14, 2008 | 4 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion

NATO at a Crossroad

Marek Swierczynski: Just before the NATO summit in Bucharest, the differences on what and how the Alliance should do in the future seem all but rising on both sides of the Atlantic. The Warsaw conference on NATO’s Transformation made fundamental divides clearly visible.

The Warsaw-based Centre for International Relations and Poland's Defence Ministry invited US and Europe's top defense analysts to attend and the secretary general was also there to deliver a keynote speech. Poor Jaap wasn't briefed well enough and painted the usual picture of unity and robustness just after pundits and his own military personnel outlined a rather gloomy asessment of the Alliance's current state - and what's more important - the future.

The political panel was dominated by the US-European controversy on the NATO's modus of operandi. Robert Kagan was there to promote and defend the American (or Republican?) mindset: we're the forces of the good versus the forces of the evil. Polish academic, professor Kuzniar ridiculled that, quoting John Quincy Adams as if NATO was becoming the new St.George, seeking far away for new dragons to fight. Yet Kagan was surprised that his European friends do not share the view and want to somewhat confine NATO to article 5 collective defense. He could not be convinced that the term has changed since the Cold War, as ISAF shows.

On the military side, there was little room for optimism too as transformation and modernisation is clearly lagging behind and the commanders are forced to operate constantly below the minimal requirements. In other words, NATO's soldiers lives are being compromised on a regular basis and that's something of a general rule rather than an exception. And that applies to theatres as dangerous as Afghanistan. Crucial modernisation programmes, such as the A400M and AGS are much behind schedule and much over the budget. The military is still looking forward to get these long awaited capabilities, but admits it'll be rather later than expected, less than required and more expensive than planned for.

Now, what can Bucharest do about it? Not much as it seems. Perhaps some trimming on energy security and cyber-warfare, as those issues are widely accepted. Perhaps more adament statements on generating forces and capabilities for ISAF. But words rarely win with bullets and even less the IED's. What's more - the summit may become a platform for public controversy and widen the transatlantic divide. That will be very dangerous and could only make Russia, China, Iran and India happy. The old-but-reviving and the new (super?)powers will be watching closely. Once NATO is seen as irrelevant, the dynamics of geopolitics will take a new and probably unwanted shape.

One more thing. The new NATO members seem to live in a Neverland. Professor Kuzniar asessed that the Alliance is the only force of global reach and capabilities. Wrong. There is no such thing as NATO global capability. There is the US global capability and to be more precise it is one of the US Navy. No other component and no other force worldwide can act globally with power and sustainability that would match the US Navy. NATO is still fully relying on the USA and it is politically very tricky to question and undermine what the US thinks NATO should do. Are we ready to risk unilateralism once again? I don't think so.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

March 18, 2008

Nikolas Kirrill Gvosdev, U.S. Naval War College, Platinum Contributor (301)

I like this comment! What's this?

At some point, NATO countries need to have a frank discussion. It seems ironic that summit meetings aren't seen as the location and instead the focus is on face-saving communiques.

The Afghan mission and the question of enlargement both strike at the heart of the same question: the purpose of the alliance. Bucharest it seems to me is just going to try and postpone these debates--and let's face it, open fights and disagreements. But where and in what formats the alliance members plan to have these necessary conversations is not clear.

March 18, 2008

Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community, Editor

I like this comment! What's this?

Nikolas, I agree with you regarding the need of a frank discussion, but I think this is already taking place. Gates' letter and Canada's ultimatum come to mind. I imagine that summit meetings get quite hot as well behind the closed doors.

Face-saving communiques are just the output for the media. The NATO members want to avoid the concern expressed by Marek Swierczynski in his outstanding article: "The summit may become a platform for public controversy and widen the transatlantic divide. That will be very dangerous and could only make Russia, China, Iran and India happy."

Nikolas, I share your and Marek's concern that Bucharest will postpone a debate on the purpose of the alliance. NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has been pushing for a new strategic concept for quite a while and brought up this issue again over the weekend at the Brussels Forum. It seems, however, he wants to start only after the Bush administration has left office:

"Starting work on a new Strategic Concept in 2009 will help to engage a new US Administration on NATO early on in its tenure. And with so many issues competing for Washington’s attention, both domestic and external, that is certainly a good thing."
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2008/s080315a.html

Here in Berlin, most observers seem to agree that Germany is not going to change its policy on Afghanistan in any significant way until after the elections in autumn 2009.

I fear this might be too late for the Afghanistan mission -- and perhaps even for NATO itself.

March 18, 2008

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Platinum Contributor (614)

I like this comment! What's this?

"The new NATO members seem to live in a Neverland. Professor Kuzniar asessed that the Alliance is the only force of global reach and capabilities. Wrong. There is no such thing as NATO global capability. There is the US global capability and to be more precise it is one of the US Navy. No other component and no other force worldwide can act globally with power and sustainability that would match the US Navy. "

Excellent point. One need only think back to the rescue effort after the Christmas2006 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster to understand that. Nor would one need to look far beyond the rather ungenerous reactions of many people in NATO's continental european member countries to see (in a microcosm) many of the stresses threatening NATO's fabric and existance. They were (in a word) uncomfortable with the US Navy fulfilling that function. The US Navy should have donned UN uniforms before rescuing desperate people. Moreover many in Europe (Germany I believe) were vociferously uncomfortable with the use of NATO aircraft by the government of the US to deliver aid from the US, paid for by the US taxpayer, to the disaster areas. Apparently because it gave the US an unfair advantage in the potlach competition the disaster relief soon turned into. No matter that the US supplied (and completely paid for) the transport aircraft which were used - Germany should have had a major say in the use of those NATO aircraft!

That was an interesting period to say the least.....

"NATO is still fully relying on the USA and it is politically very tricky to question and undermine what the US thinks NATO should do. Are we ready to risk unilateralism once again? I don't think so."

US unilateralism on the lines of the Iraq War is not the immediate concern. No. I would think that unilateralism on the lines of the German/French/Italian/Spanish refusal to engage in combat in Afghanistan is the risk. Come the next European crisis the US, UK, and Canada may unilaterally refuse to provide combat forces - following the precedent set by the French and Germans.....

May 30, 2008

ilyas m mohsin, ppp, Platinum Contributor (253)

I like this comment! What's this?

Face saving communiques become indispensable because of the diverese interests of the partners. The US being the top-gun appears to
generally, call the shots but not these days. Accordingly, the diplomats have to paper the cracks by producing ambivalent statements. Spin appears to have ruled the Wetsern world, generally, in the last 7 years.
Hope there is a healthy change with a new Administartion in DC.