NATOSource is proudly sponsored by EADS North America

New Atlanticist
National Interests
- Afghanistan
- Albania
- Armenia
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Brazil
- Britain
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Chad
- China
- Congo (DRC)
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Georgia
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Kyrgyzstan
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Libya
- Macedonia
- Malta
- Montenegro
- Morocco
- Netherlands
- North Korea
- Norway
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Saudi Arabia
- Serbia
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Somalia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spain
- Sudan
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Taiwan (ROC)
- Tajikistan
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- U.A.E.
- U.S.
- Ukraine
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
Two NATOs in One
Jorge Benitez | June 11, 2012From Anne-Marie Slaughter, WE-NATO: As I said and wrote before the NATO summit (here and here), one of the most important dimensions of this summit was Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s articulated vision of NATO as “the hub of a network of global security partnerships,” a vision underlined by U.S. National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. NATO itself has over 40 country partners. . . .
I have discussed these ideas in multiple fora in Germany and London over the course of a ten-day tour through Europe after the NATO summit and heard a variety of reactions. I come away with a much clearer impression of two NATOs in one. The first NATO is the “core NATO,” a “collective defense alliance” in which all 28 members are pledged to regard an attack on one as an attack on all under Article 5. For this NATO the issues of ensuring that all members meet their 2% of GDP defense spending commitments and of further enlargement in the Western Balkans and to the East will remain critical. This NATO will be much more concentrated on operating within the wider European space. It will still require agreed action by all 28 members. And it will still be primarily a “hard security” alliance, meaning a focus on deterrence and war-fighting. It is unlikely soon again to follow the United States into wars far beyond Europe’s borders, even if the U.S.were inclined to fight them.
The second NATO, however, is an emerging “global NATO.” That NATO will be a collective security asset for its global partners, providing a wide variety of resources from expertise to air support to boots on the ground. It will be at least open to engagement of many different kinds far beyond Europe’s borders, but it will not require the participation of all NATO members. It will require the agreement of all members to the action, as it did for the Libya action in March 2011 (Germany agreed to the action even though it abstained in the vote to intervene in the UN Security Council). But only those members that wish to participate and commit their dedicated assets will carry out the action. This NATO will also invest more in soft security assets, such as the new Comprehensive Crisis and Operations Management Centre, which brings together civilian and military expertise on crisis identification, planning, operations, reconstruction and stabilization capabilities. . . .
NATO members do not have to choose between the first and the second NATO. NATO can be simultaneously a Euro-Atlantic collective defense alliance and the hub of a growing global security network and can find ways to have each role reinforce the other. Whither NATO? Many directions at once.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, an Atlantic Council Board member, is the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
NATOSource

The daily news of the world's most powerful alliance.
The views expressed in NATOSource are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
Follow on Twitter: @NATOSource
"I am an enormous fan of NATOSource. I use it virtually every day, because it provides a wide variety of views, a solid base of factual knowledge, and keeps me in touch with the world of NATO."
Admiral James Stavridis, (Ret,), former SACEUR

(Graphics: Deutsche Welle and Reuters)
Most Popular NATOSource Posts
Key Issues
- Alliance Unity
- Allied Command Operations
- Allied Command Transformation
- Article 5
- Burden Sharing
- Capabilities Gap
- Chicago Summit
- Congress
- CSTO
- Cyber Threats
- Defense Spending
- Energy Security
- EU
- High North
- Intelligence
- ISAF
- Missile Defense
- NATO Defense Ministerials
- NATO Exercises
- NATO Ministerials
- NATO Operations
- NATO Partnerships
- NATO Response Force
- Nuclear Weapons
- OSCE
- Piracy
- R2P
- SACEUR
- SACT
- Secretary General
- Smart Defense
- Special Forces
- Strategic Concept
- Terrorism
- Transatlantic Relations
- United Nations
- Weapon Systems
TransAtlantic Links
Media Links
- Associated Press
- Baltic Times
- Brussels blog
- Deutsche Welle
- Economist
- EU Observer
- European Voice
- Financial Times
- Guardian
- Hurriyet Daily News
- International Herald Tribune
- Kathimerini
- Kyiv Post
- Le Monde Diplomatique
- Moscow Times
- New York Times
- Newsweek
- Prague Daily Monitor
- Radio Free Europe
- Reuters
- Ria Novosti
- Russia Today
- Slovak Spectator
- Spiegel
- St. Petersburg Times
- Sur
- Telegraph
- Times (London)
- Today's Zaman
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Xinhua
Research Centers
- American Enterprise Institute (AEI), United States
- Aspen Institute, United States
- Atlantic Council, United States
- Brookings Institution, United States
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States
- Cato Institute, United States
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS), United States
- Center for International Relations (CIR), Poland
- Center for Security Studies (CSS), Switzerland
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), United States
- Center for Transatlantic Relations, United States
- Cicero Foundation, Netherlands
- Council on Foreign Relations, United States
- Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), Denmark
- EU Institute for Security Studies, France
- European Council on Foreign Relations, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Spain, UK
- European Institute, United States
- Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), France
- French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), France
- Fundacion para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociale (FAES), Spain
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Germany
- German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
- Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (GEES), Spain
- Heritage Foundation, United States
- Hoover Institution, United States
- Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), France
- Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), United States
- Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Germany
- Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Italy
- International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), United Kingdom
- Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Germany
- Lemnitzer Center, United States
- Marshall Center, Germany
- Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Netherlands
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway
- RAND, United States
- Real Instituto Elcano, Spain
- Ridgway Center, United States
- Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), United Kingdom
- Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), United Kingdom
- Schuman Center (RSCAS), Italy
- Security & Defence Agenda (SDA), Belgium
- Strategy International (SI), Greece
- U.S. Institute of Peace, United States
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, United States

