Background Reading
NATO has been discussed at length the last couple of weeks, here’s a quick run-down of what I’ve been reading. Take a look at them; each is phenomenal.
- I’ve been thinking about NATO’s mission and fate since I read The End of Alliances a couple of weeks ago. In that book, Rajan Menon prophesied that without the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO would whither and die.
- Last week, the Danish Institute for International Studies released Come Home, NATO?, a brief but fascinating look at NATO’s past strategic concepts and some predictions about the next one. Ringsmose and Rynning offer “two competing visions of NATO: one is ‘come home NATO’… the other is ‘globalize, stupid.’ They believe that NATO is already globalizing, and that it will continue to do so (unless Afghanistan is a massive failure).
- Gerald Loftus, reporting from Brussels, points out the problem with a global NATO, “for every call for branching out into sometimes esoteric subject areas, or transforming itself into ‘Global NATO,’ there will be member states ready to say, ‘not us, that’s the other guys’ job,’ as one NATO veteran put it. Other guys, as in the European Union or the UN.” He points out another question for NATO, that of, “competing views of NATO as a defense (but not ‘military’) alliance,” (combating cyber-security, transnational crime, etc.).
- In January, NATO made something of a stir by talking about the warming Arctic. The Arctic excites many traditional NATOists because it’s a hint of conflict between the West and Russia. Matt Stone nicely summed it up, saying, “western governments have largely coalesced behind the position of international law determining the Arctic’s final status whereas Russian activities (and rhetoric) suggest a more geopolitical, change-the-facts-on-the-’ground’ approach.” Katarzyna Zysk, in an article entitled, “Geopolitics In the Arctic: The Russian Security Perspective,” points out that the Russians see NATO as a threat and the Arctic as a “strategic playground.”
NATO’s Present
Afghanistan has shown the cracks in the alliance. The anglophones are taking the brunt of the casualties while many of our Allies are stationed in relatively quiet areas. These allies are participating, and their presence despite wary populaces is a testament unto itself in many ways. Nevertheless, resentment is building.
I should also probably mention that not only did the organization fail to act in Iraq, several members actively worked to soft-balance the U.S. in the build up to war. With the new administration, the whole world may associate Iraq with Bush more than the U.S. Time will tell.
Russia is also a complication (as I pointed out last week). Many of its decision-makers remember that the Treaty of Washington was signed to counter Soviet (i.e. Russian) power and resent its continued existence.
NATO has three things going for it:
- Well-built institutions rarely die, and the status quo doesn’t change itself.
- As the EU grows in power, the U.S. is going to want to keep a seat at the table of its de facto military.
- Finally, “new Europe” wants to be a part of the original NATO - a bulwark against Russian dominance.
NATO’s Future
Now it’s time to put my money where my mouth is and say what I think. Without serious rapprochement with Russia, I can’t see NATO abandoning its primary, local, military focus; indeed, I’d wager extreme rapprochement between NATO and Russia would look more like the G-8 than the League of Nations. The Arctic poses challenges and opportunities for everyone, enough for its own post.
I don’t see a serious expansion of NATO mission. There’s bound to be some mission creep, but I don’t see any members pushing for great expansion, much less the sort of broad consensus required for such things. Afghanistan appears to have shown the limits of faraway NATO conflicts. A diplomatic triumph could change things, but for now the prospect of NATO as a worldwide force seems somewhat dim.
The status quo never makes for great reading, but I’m afraid it’s all I’ve got for you. What do you think? Will NATO die, hold steady, or grow? Is everything dependent on Russia, Afghanistan, or some other factor? Am I missing the point entirely? Let me know!
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
What role do you think increasing Islamic influence in Europe, a declining Russian population (combined w/ improvements in alternative energy makes them less potent of a power) will contribute to the weakening of the transatlantic alliance against a less relevant power?
I enjoyed the link to the DIIS article and I think they hit on a lot of key questions. I particularly liked the seemingly obvious idea that “…the heart of the matter is the fact that NATO has become different things to different nations.”
I read about the conflict between Russia and Georgia with much interest and think that it was a bad omen for the future of NATO. Georgia had been promised future NATO membership just months before their encounter with Russia, and was probably shocked when the only assistance they received from their future allies was a wag of a finger at Russia.
I think we need to be careful with the term “Global NATO.” Many people use “Global” to describe their vision for the alliance, and more often than not these analysts are in contradiction with each other.
For example, take NATO as envisioned by Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. This NATO is just as much a political club as it is a security alliance; a League of Democracies with a politically correct name.
Contrast this to the global NATO imagined by Jay Carafono of the Heritage Foundation. This NATO has North Atlantic member states but a global mission. In this sense it is much like our own NATO- save it acts in a much more efficient and wieldy fashion.
Both visions of a “Global NATO” have their faults. The first requires NATO to incorporate members who will not gain much from NATO membership and who will provide even less to the alliance. The second vision is only sustainable in the face of a constant threat from lands far away- but it is yet to be determined if NATO can win wars in lands far away in the first place. In the end, I cannot help but conclude that both visions, if adopted, will lead to failure.
Great comments.
@Lansing - “the weakening of the alliance against a less relevant power” is a phenomenal way of putting it. Future demographics are really intesting, see http://www.thehegemonist.com/2009/01/demographic-hegemony.html Why do you think Islamic influence will weaken NATO? Turkey’s been in for decades.
@Political Fermentations - That quote hits the nail on the head. On Georgia, I read somewhere that Georgia was the graveyard for American hegemony. I was more than a little disappointed in Europe’s response to Georgia (outside of Poland), but to play devil’s advocate, Georgia’s gambit did seem a bit reckless. I mean, it showed that Russia was still a mean bully, but I think we already knew it.
@T. Greer - I couldn’t agree with you more. PPI’s suggestion sounds, frankly, catastrophic. I actually agree with Carafono’s first and fifth point, but think the challenge will be getting unanimity.
Just wanted to point you towards this article, if you haven't already seen it. Pretty interesting and related to both the topics of NATO and the rise of Russia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12military.html?_r=1