EVENTS

Date:	Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Time:	10:30 AM -- 12:30 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

November 2005

Revitalizing NATO for the Challenges of a New Era

 

The NATO alliance has been adrift since the end of the Cold War. Even before the crisis sparked by the 2003 Iraq war, the alliance struggled to find a new definition and a new organizing principle. The gradual reduction in transatlantic tension since that crisis offers the opportunity to see what should have been apparent since September 11, 2001: the primary mission of NATO today should be to combat the Islamist extremism that poses a direct and imminent threat to all NATO members. The Fundacion Para el Analisis y los Estudios Sociales (FAES), a Madrid-based research institution, has recently proposed a plan of action to revitalize the alliance by gearing it toward the fight against Islamic extremism. Accepting this challenge, however, would likely mean expanding NATO’s membership to give the alliance a more truly global posture. Is a new NATO the right answer? Can the anticommunist infrastructure of the Cold War be turned now against militant Islam? What are the alternatives for NATO’s future? These and other questions were discussed at a November 16 AEI panel discussion.

José María Aznar
President of FAES, Former Prime Minister of Spain

I believe in Atlantic relations. The long-standing relations between the United States and Europe are critical to gaining a more complete understanding of both entities. Today, you cannot think of Europe without considering America, just as you cannot think of America without considering Europe. Our ties are too intertwined, and that is reflected in our institutions. NATO, as a critical example, is in a dangerous identity crisis. Despite the alliance’s hyperactivity during the 1990s, the organization suffers from a deep sense of having lost its mission. The 1990s were a time of celebrating NATO’s defeat of the traditional Soviet threat. It was also, however, a time of ignoring the emerging threat from radical Islamist terror.

Today, we face a mortal enemy and those who argue that extremists are merely a force to contain are wrong. As a result, just as NATO was recreated in the 1990s, we must do so again to reverse American lack of interest and European negligence. To do so, I propose that we focus on the following efforts: 1) NATO must boldly embrace its values of freedom and democracy, becoming more than a mere alliance of convenience; 2) NATO members must recognize that we still need an organization for collective defense; 3) NATO must embrace a new strategic mission centered around effectively fighting and defeating radical Islamist terror; 4) NATO should develop coordinated homeland security efforts between its members; and 5) NATO should expand beyond its regional base to become a truly worldwide alliance for freedom. To do so, NATO should consider admitting Australia, Japan, and Israel as fellow members. In addition, NATO should consider looking to other states with demonstrated commitments to democracy, such as Colombia, to develop a partnership effort with NATO.

Gary Schmitt
AEI

There are several dynamics presently at work in transatlantic relations. The recent ratification failure of the proposed EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands has taken the steam out of efforts to cast the EU as a counterweight to NATO and the perceived power of the United States. In addition, there are major changes afoot in the State Department and the Pentagon. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appears to be putting more effort into the transatlantic relationship than had been done under her predecessor. Further, the Pentagon is beginning to change its tune on the value and importance of these bilateral relationships.

Despite these recent, generally positive, events, NATO faces major challenges if it is to be effective in the twenty-first century. To address these challenges, NATO needs to reexamine its operating procedures. One item NATO members should consider addressing is the traditional unanimity requirement that has been a hallmark of the alliance since its founding. During the Cold War, unanimity among the members, although not always easily achieved, could be amassed quite quickly in the event of Soviet tanks lining up on the fields of Poland. Today, that overwhelming threat is gone, but Western democracies are still confronted with the deadly threat of terrorism. To effectively counter that, NATO should consider establishing a supermajority threshold for alliance actions, rather than the traditional unanimity requirement.

Christian Delanghe
Armée de Terre

Addressing NATO from a French point of view is always difficult because, whenever the subject is discussed, there is always immediate interest in the EU accepting a larger security role at NATO’s expense. That difficulty acknowledged, I agree that NATO must develop a new, broad political vision and geopolitical strategy to carry that vision out. One question to ask is whether, in fact, the threat of terrorism is truly significant enough to totally retool the Alliance. I am not so sure, but I do believe that NATO must develop a larger political vision to survive. In addition, NATO should focus on becoming a “coalition of coalitions,” involving both military and political components. Central to these efforts must be a NATO role for control and coordination.

Dan Blumenthal
AEI

I am intrigued by the idea of inviting Australia and Japan to join NATO. There are many, many similarities between the NATO democracies and these two countries. Further, there is the added advantage that Asia has much to potentially learn from the NATO experience of collective defense. Japan is currently undergoing a fundamental change regarding use of its military. These changes, including deploying Japanese forces to Iraq, are occurring in the face of significant constitutional and legal hurdles. Despite this, the Japanese government is steadily moving forward in addressing them and helping Japan take a larger role on the world stage. Australia is also certainly an international player. Australia, however, might be slightly of a different case in that it may very well wish to preserve its freedom of action in certain areas, particularly in certain regional issues. Due to these constraints, in both Japan and Australia, it might be worth establishing a framework for them to work within NATO rather than becoming full-fledged members. Regardless, it is clear that the Asian democracies should have some sort of more formal framework to work within.

AEI intern Hunter M. Abell prepared this summary.