NATO's unclear future
22/4/10 17:44![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA lot of analysts have observed that NATO has entered a severe identity crisis in the recent years. It became evident in its summit last year in Strasbourg & Kehl. In the meantime, the anti-NATO sentiments increase, including in some of the original founder countries. There were tens of thousands of protesters in Germany and France during the summit.
What's the reason for this crisis? Mainly the organization's inadequate answer to the fundamental changes in the dynamics of the international relations. The world is becoming more complicated, more entangled and multi-faceted. The security threats have become global like the world itself: terrorism, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, migration, environmental problems, the scarcity of energy resources. All these issues don't know borders and scale limitations. The state borders are getting diluted beyond recognition. The Internet has made them irrelevant in many respects. So the monopoly of the state on the sphere of security is getting undermined. The fact is that the modern threats to security don't have a strict geographic expression. And this makes the traditional approach to dealing with them ineffective.
The world has stopped being as black and white as it used to be, or as some tried to portray it during the Cold War era. In international politics, the moral principles don't have that level of clarity and simplicity which they had in the bipolar world. In these new circumstances, despite such 'universal values' as democracy, human rights and free market economy, we can notice increasing differences in the way these values are interpreted by presumed allies (Europeans and Americans, and let's not mention Asians). The hierarchical ranking of these values is also different on the two sides of the Atlantic. Instead of convergence, we see these sides departing in their understanding of these things.
This reflects in the way these sides solve the most important international issues. That's what happened during the American intervention in Iraq, which was started without a sanction from the UN and without support from the bulk of the European allies. In fact, the painful experience of the two world wars and the following processes of European integration (which were very much a consequence of the wars, and were encouraged by the US) resulted in the EU project, and formed a political culture in Europe which is based on the principles of political tolerance and so-called 'positive discrimination', related to the concept of a 'multicultural world', where all its parts are considered equal.
The differences in the political culture of Europe and America are partially what causes the discord between the NATO members on some fundamental issues of world politics. While America ranks its priorities depending on which aspect of the international relations best suits their own national interests and the US national security, the Europeans regard the concepts of human rights, the right of self determination and the traditions of consensus and compromise in decision making as their primary priorities. It's a necessity - the alternative is another fragmented Europe and another WW1. However we shouldn't forget that the contribution to the formation of NATO is incomparable. The American military might has no match, that is beyond any doubt. That explains the logical consequence: the US acting more or less unilaterally, especially when the situation is directly linked to their own national security - while using its allies as support and including them in one or another operation whenever deemed convenient (Afghanistan).
NATO's main difficulty comes from the fact that things have changed from the Cold War times. Before, the member states had to cope with the constant presence of a real and easily identifiable external threat, the Soviet bloc. Now, many modern threats are often related to processes occurring even within the member countries themselves. And the advent of these threats could not be detected by any radar stations and satellite tracking systems. The 21st century terrorism is an asymetric threat, and conventional means of fighting it are simply useless. Its main feature is that the 'battle' is not fought so much by 'enemy states' but by international networks with their own specifics, and often by citizens of the NATO members too. Regardless of their apparent nationality, value system and political conviction.
Today NATO is as incapable of solving the problems of terrorism as it was in 2001. Because initially NATO was designed for different purposes. Its function was to carry out large-scale military actions against an aggressive adversary (the communist bloc or its proxies). So its entire structure and its bureaucratic apparatus was tuned to such sort of threats. Besides, the main NATO principle of decision making by consensus automatically excludes the possibility of instant reaction. That's why the US has been forging various 'coalitions of the willing' ever since 9-11, instead of relying on the clumsy Alliance.
So here comes the new concept of a 'global' NATO... Many experts believe that solving all these problems goes through overcoming this identity crisis by turning NATO into a 'global military power'. But this vision for the future is not shared by some of the most influential European allies. Thus, just before the Strasbourg / Kehl meeting, Angela Merkel said that NATO shouldn't act as a global military power. But that still didn't prevent the NATO-globalization subject from becoming the focus on the summit that followed (along with NATO's relations with Russia and China).
In fact, as Patrick Keller, the chairman of the Conrad Adenauer Foundation said, NATO has become an organization which defines and defends its own interests, and particularly those of the US - in various corners, like South Asia, Africa, etc. Meanwhile, when asked whether NATO should take some of UN's functions, admiral Giampaolo Di Paola (the chairman of the Military committee) said that this should be out of question; 'NATO isn't a global organization, it's an organization acting in an increasingly globalized world'. Other top European figures in the Alliance have also said that NATO shouldn't play the role of a 'gobal policeman'. Although in many respects, it already is.
The Declaration of the Alliance which was adopted last year only confirms the plans for a further transformation toward NATO's globalization. Some good initiatives include increased partnership with UN, EU, OSCE and possibly even the African Union. The now former NATO chairman De Hoop Scheffer said that by 2020, the NATO-UN partnership should reach a new level, and should be clearly institutionalized. And the question of NATO's globalization will be the main point in the new strategic concept.
On that meeting, the main subject was how to make NATO capable of adequately addressing the new issues like energy security, cyber crime and cyber warfare, anti-terrorism, piracy... And making NATO more flexible (i.e. less confrontational) in its relations with big partners like Russia and China. And there's much that these partnerships could develop around, like building the transit infrastructure for oil and natural gas transportation (the pipelines) and securing its safety along the route. All these problems require more coordination with China, Russia, India and all the countries in the respective regions. And I do mean coordination, diplomacy and cooperation rather than building up military potential. Quantity does not make quality, that's for sure.
NATO should expand its cooperation with the Russia-dominated organization for collective security in Eurasia. The term 'partnership' which used to be abandoned by Bush's administration seems to be back in use by Obama's administration. Granted, it's just a word, but that's at least something. It'd be nice if the US administration is able to listen to its partners instead of just talking. The NATO members have responded by stating their readiness to increase their strategic partnership with Russia and secure the Euro-Atlantic region. The US decision to cancel the project for the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is a positive sign in that direction. Other options will be looked for, perhaps a more mobile system.
But the fact is that all these initiatives mostly reflect the position of the leading members from the so-called Old Europe (as Bush tried to call them in a derogatory way, as if that was really some insult). This paradigm doesn't reflect the US agenda that much. The camp of turning NATO into a global 'league of democracies' is still very strong in the US administration. That 'league' is supposed to focus on promoting democracy in various countries, at any cost, and disregarding the position of the UN Security Council whenever necessary. It should be able to carry out instant military operations in all corners of the world whenever it decides. Ivo Daalder, the new US envoy to NATO openly campaigns for the Alliance's active involvement in a number of countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic region, like Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan... Btw such hints can be noticed in the Security Declaration of the Strasbourg/Kehl meeting.
My conclusion is that the current identity crisis is caused by two things. One, NATO's inadequate structure which has become irrelevant to the changing global realities. And two, the deepening differences in the vision of NATO's functions, stemming from the different priorities and strategies of the US and the European 'core' (Old Europe). The most immediate example that comes to mind is Afghanistan. There's a striking lack of consensus about the goals of the Afghanistan mission; there are differences even in the assessment of the situation...
Obviously the new concept of the Alliance which will be adopted on its next summit in Lisbon at the end of this year, will define NATO's identity for many years ahead. As we know, every strategy includes setting a number of priorities and ranking them. And that could later tie the hands of those who adopt said strategy. The direction which NATO chooses in Lisbon will define how effectively the organization could address the 21st century challenges, how the situation in Afghanistan will develop and how exactly the Alliance will start to transform and reform.
I'm thinking that it's very important that NATO realizes that the US-centric concept of turning it into a 'global military league of democracies' and thus confronting it to Russia, China (and not only them) would be extremely counter-productive. I hope NATO will adopt the other concept, that of deepening the partnership and cooperation with Russia (which however includes stopping NATO's expansion further toward the Russian borders). Otherwise we're in for another Cold War, given the fact that the US is experiencing increasing geopolitical challenges from several sides, Russia is re-gaining its status, China is lurking around, etc. Those are the realities, and they're very dynamic. Our leaders will soon be standing at a choice - do we want another Cold War? This time maybe with more than 2 players, but still a Cold War. And this should answer the awesome![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
underlankers post about the monopolar / bipolar / multipolar world. Ultimately the question might well be: Do we want another bi/tri-polar confrontation or not?
What's the reason for this crisis? Mainly the organization's inadequate answer to the fundamental changes in the dynamics of the international relations. The world is becoming more complicated, more entangled and multi-faceted. The security threats have become global like the world itself: terrorism, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, migration, environmental problems, the scarcity of energy resources. All these issues don't know borders and scale limitations. The state borders are getting diluted beyond recognition. The Internet has made them irrelevant in many respects. So the monopoly of the state on the sphere of security is getting undermined. The fact is that the modern threats to security don't have a strict geographic expression. And this makes the traditional approach to dealing with them ineffective.
The world has stopped being as black and white as it used to be, or as some tried to portray it during the Cold War era. In international politics, the moral principles don't have that level of clarity and simplicity which they had in the bipolar world. In these new circumstances, despite such 'universal values' as democracy, human rights and free market economy, we can notice increasing differences in the way these values are interpreted by presumed allies (Europeans and Americans, and let's not mention Asians). The hierarchical ranking of these values is also different on the two sides of the Atlantic. Instead of convergence, we see these sides departing in their understanding of these things.
This reflects in the way these sides solve the most important international issues. That's what happened during the American intervention in Iraq, which was started without a sanction from the UN and without support from the bulk of the European allies. In fact, the painful experience of the two world wars and the following processes of European integration (which were very much a consequence of the wars, and were encouraged by the US) resulted in the EU project, and formed a political culture in Europe which is based on the principles of political tolerance and so-called 'positive discrimination', related to the concept of a 'multicultural world', where all its parts are considered equal.
The differences in the political culture of Europe and America are partially what causes the discord between the NATO members on some fundamental issues of world politics. While America ranks its priorities depending on which aspect of the international relations best suits their own national interests and the US national security, the Europeans regard the concepts of human rights, the right of self determination and the traditions of consensus and compromise in decision making as their primary priorities. It's a necessity - the alternative is another fragmented Europe and another WW1. However we shouldn't forget that the contribution to the formation of NATO is incomparable. The American military might has no match, that is beyond any doubt. That explains the logical consequence: the US acting more or less unilaterally, especially when the situation is directly linked to their own national security - while using its allies as support and including them in one or another operation whenever deemed convenient (Afghanistan).
NATO's main difficulty comes from the fact that things have changed from the Cold War times. Before, the member states had to cope with the constant presence of a real and easily identifiable external threat, the Soviet bloc. Now, many modern threats are often related to processes occurring even within the member countries themselves. And the advent of these threats could not be detected by any radar stations and satellite tracking systems. The 21st century terrorism is an asymetric threat, and conventional means of fighting it are simply useless. Its main feature is that the 'battle' is not fought so much by 'enemy states' but by international networks with their own specifics, and often by citizens of the NATO members too. Regardless of their apparent nationality, value system and political conviction.
Today NATO is as incapable of solving the problems of terrorism as it was in 2001. Because initially NATO was designed for different purposes. Its function was to carry out large-scale military actions against an aggressive adversary (the communist bloc or its proxies). So its entire structure and its bureaucratic apparatus was tuned to such sort of threats. Besides, the main NATO principle of decision making by consensus automatically excludes the possibility of instant reaction. That's why the US has been forging various 'coalitions of the willing' ever since 9-11, instead of relying on the clumsy Alliance.
So here comes the new concept of a 'global' NATO... Many experts believe that solving all these problems goes through overcoming this identity crisis by turning NATO into a 'global military power'. But this vision for the future is not shared by some of the most influential European allies. Thus, just before the Strasbourg / Kehl meeting, Angela Merkel said that NATO shouldn't act as a global military power. But that still didn't prevent the NATO-globalization subject from becoming the focus on the summit that followed (along with NATO's relations with Russia and China).
In fact, as Patrick Keller, the chairman of the Conrad Adenauer Foundation said, NATO has become an organization which defines and defends its own interests, and particularly those of the US - in various corners, like South Asia, Africa, etc. Meanwhile, when asked whether NATO should take some of UN's functions, admiral Giampaolo Di Paola (the chairman of the Military committee) said that this should be out of question; 'NATO isn't a global organization, it's an organization acting in an increasingly globalized world'. Other top European figures in the Alliance have also said that NATO shouldn't play the role of a 'gobal policeman'. Although in many respects, it already is.
The Declaration of the Alliance which was adopted last year only confirms the plans for a further transformation toward NATO's globalization. Some good initiatives include increased partnership with UN, EU, OSCE and possibly even the African Union. The now former NATO chairman De Hoop Scheffer said that by 2020, the NATO-UN partnership should reach a new level, and should be clearly institutionalized. And the question of NATO's globalization will be the main point in the new strategic concept.
On that meeting, the main subject was how to make NATO capable of adequately addressing the new issues like energy security, cyber crime and cyber warfare, anti-terrorism, piracy... And making NATO more flexible (i.e. less confrontational) in its relations with big partners like Russia and China. And there's much that these partnerships could develop around, like building the transit infrastructure for oil and natural gas transportation (the pipelines) and securing its safety along the route. All these problems require more coordination with China, Russia, India and all the countries in the respective regions. And I do mean coordination, diplomacy and cooperation rather than building up military potential. Quantity does not make quality, that's for sure.
NATO should expand its cooperation with the Russia-dominated organization for collective security in Eurasia. The term 'partnership' which used to be abandoned by Bush's administration seems to be back in use by Obama's administration. Granted, it's just a word, but that's at least something. It'd be nice if the US administration is able to listen to its partners instead of just talking. The NATO members have responded by stating their readiness to increase their strategic partnership with Russia and secure the Euro-Atlantic region. The US decision to cancel the project for the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is a positive sign in that direction. Other options will be looked for, perhaps a more mobile system.
But the fact is that all these initiatives mostly reflect the position of the leading members from the so-called Old Europe (as Bush tried to call them in a derogatory way, as if that was really some insult). This paradigm doesn't reflect the US agenda that much. The camp of turning NATO into a global 'league of democracies' is still very strong in the US administration. That 'league' is supposed to focus on promoting democracy in various countries, at any cost, and disregarding the position of the UN Security Council whenever necessary. It should be able to carry out instant military operations in all corners of the world whenever it decides. Ivo Daalder, the new US envoy to NATO openly campaigns for the Alliance's active involvement in a number of countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic region, like Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan... Btw such hints can be noticed in the Security Declaration of the Strasbourg/Kehl meeting.
My conclusion is that the current identity crisis is caused by two things. One, NATO's inadequate structure which has become irrelevant to the changing global realities. And two, the deepening differences in the vision of NATO's functions, stemming from the different priorities and strategies of the US and the European 'core' (Old Europe). The most immediate example that comes to mind is Afghanistan. There's a striking lack of consensus about the goals of the Afghanistan mission; there are differences even in the assessment of the situation...
Obviously the new concept of the Alliance which will be adopted on its next summit in Lisbon at the end of this year, will define NATO's identity for many years ahead. As we know, every strategy includes setting a number of priorities and ranking them. And that could later tie the hands of those who adopt said strategy. The direction which NATO chooses in Lisbon will define how effectively the organization could address the 21st century challenges, how the situation in Afghanistan will develop and how exactly the Alliance will start to transform and reform.
I'm thinking that it's very important that NATO realizes that the US-centric concept of turning it into a 'global military league of democracies' and thus confronting it to Russia, China (and not only them) would be extremely counter-productive. I hope NATO will adopt the other concept, that of deepening the partnership and cooperation with Russia (which however includes stopping NATO's expansion further toward the Russian borders). Otherwise we're in for another Cold War, given the fact that the US is experiencing increasing geopolitical challenges from several sides, Russia is re-gaining its status, China is lurking around, etc. Those are the realities, and they're very dynamic. Our leaders will soon be standing at a choice - do we want another Cold War? This time maybe with more than 2 players, but still a Cold War. And this should answer the awesome
underlankers post about the monopolar / bipolar / multipolar world. Ultimately the question might well be: Do we want another bi/tri-polar confrontation or not?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:25 (UTC)From my side of things, I consider NATO an increasingly obsolete relic of the Cold War. There's no Soviet Empire to contend for hegemony with, and expanding it into the former Warsaw Pact and SSRs has in a lot of ways done more harm than good. What would be better would be more of a UN with actual teeth instead of a global NATO, at least IMHO.
NATO had its origins in defending the imperial interests of the United States against those of the Soviet Union, but the problem is that the days of Soviet power are going to reach 20 years gone next year, and absent something like the USSR there's no real justification for an Alliance which nowadays is, as you noted, simply a fig leaf for US interests that gives them a more international glamour.
I think that creating a greater alliance of nations is necessary, but my view is less NATO, which was an imperial alliance against another imperial alliance, and more what one would get if UN peacekeepers were turned into an actual military with punitive power.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:38 (UTC)I thought we used to like challenges, or have we become that complacent that we don't care about that kinda stuff and more?
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 02:33 (UTC)I get the feeling you mean the former, altho I don't see it. I read most of what you write at TP and I confess to being confused. If I knew for sure HOW to read you it would help :D
(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 13:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/4/10 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:43 (UTC)Which would still, ultimately, need to be backed by US power or is pretty much useless.
Hence, why not turn it into a military exchange and training programme that can feed into the UN for whatever peacekeeping requirements are needed.
This would achieve two purposes..
1. Create a platform and context for higher level contacts between military leaders (although there was similar high contact before the WW1, not that it made much difference to the outbreak of war but then that lacked a coherent platform and context and...)
2. Shift focus from war to peacekeeping duties, protection - which is ostensibly the original goal of NATO - rather than aggression.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:44 (UTC)Your idea is good, logically sound, and sensible. Nobody's going to do it for all of those reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:50 (UTC)Leaving that aside, you may be right.
I would also note the contemporary expansion of NATO is is not something unprecedented, but simply an extension of the US Cold War strategy to encircle the USSR with multiple US allies, such as NATO, the Baghdad Pact, SEATO, and so on. Only nowadays Russia's getting some power back and the USA didn't see it coming....
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 16:36 (UTC)That is, no, we should not return to a bi- or tri-polar military alliance, NATO should evolve towards the goal of creating wider contact points between army leaders, and especially future leaders.
Outside of that, I'm afraid you drastically oversimplify the mission of NATO and the goals of the US, while overstating the importance of Russia to North Atlantic security. I'd have more to say, but I'm on something of a deadline - and I need to make it somewhere shortly.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 17:33 (UTC)The aspect of a common defense is a good one, but as you pointed there's a growing rift in the Alliance itself, mainly between the USA and the European section. Truth be told a US dominated alliance would not last, not with the US putting its own interests first and foremost above that of compromise and change, as we saw under W.
Even the strongest of ties in the alliance, by which i mean the US and UK, have come under strain in recent years and will probably continue to do so as the years roll by. A European bloc, headed by the big three (France-Germany-UK) seems an inevitable direction for some, with many, as you pointed, looking for a great cooperation with Russia.
I myself am in favour of a more balanced NATO aspect. In the past the USA has not really been challenged within the western ranks, but the rise of the EU, alongside other powers such as Brazil, China and India, has shifted the willingness of many to exist within an American centered organisation, as political differences become more apparent.
A prediction i'd be willing to make would be the emergence of a Euro-bloc in terms of security, from the remnants of NATO. There would be ties of course, to the USA, but also towards Russia and other blocs and vvs.
You many eventually see 6 power blocs instead of the 2 of the cold war. (China, US, India, EU, Russia, Brazil)
Or i could be proven to be just an idiot who likes to speculate.
Great post, all in all.
(no subject)
Date: 22/4/10 18:13 (UTC)I think the interesting implications are if the bulk of the european allies will continue to assume that the US will bail them out in case of a military emergency. Given their current behaviour and little in the way of beefing up their military to be a more independent military counterweight I see that as being the case.
Which then given their phlegmatic involvement in the current war makes me wonder if the US actually should step in if shits hit a far away fan again.