NATO: Relic or Revitalized?
Harlan Ullman | July 08, 2009
Yesterday in Brussels, NATO kicked off a yearlong process to draft a new strategic concept. The last strategic concept was adopted a decade ago at the Washington Summit marking the alliance's 50th anniversary, when NATO was at war in what turned out to be a 78-day bombing campaign to stop Serbia and its autocratic leader Slobodan Milosevic's ruthless campaign of slaughter in Kosovo labeled mildly as ethnic cleansing. But, in many ways, the challenges today are greater than at any time in NATO's 60-year history.
For one thing, NATO's success led to a complete dissolution of the enemy it was created to deter, contain and defeat when the Soviet Union imploded two decades ago. Yet, NATO still remains a military alliance directed against very diaphanous and different threats. Thus, NATO has been struggling for a raison d'etre that recognizes traditional defense does not fit the broader security challenges and dangers that are in evidence, all the while expanding from 19 to 28 member nations.
The centerpiece of the alliance rests in Article V of the Washington Treaty: an attack on one in Europe or North America constitutes an attack against all. In conducting its business, consensus, meaning unanimity in agreement, has been the modus operandi. However, the definition of threat is not universally shared as many NATO members are more comfortable with traditional and proximate notions of territorial defense than with the newer expeditionary missions that have taken the alliance to its first ground war ever in Afghanistan, and with new threats from cyberattack and protection of critical infrastructure to responding to huge disasters whether of man or nature. And make no mistake. The future credibility and cohesion of the alliance rests on how well or how badly Afghanistan turns out -- in any event likely to prove a "close run thing."
Beyond these profound changes in the security environment, NATO must come to grips with other tough issues. In virtually all member states, defense spending is declining in difficult economic times. NATO's bureaucratic organization is sclerotic and needs major overhaul. And in dealing with this array of daunting issues, as outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Army Gen. John Craddock has outspokenly observed, "NATO's political leadership is often AWOL."
The Leninist question of "what is to be done?" now confronts the alliance in developing a new strategic concept. But not everything is negative. NATO has proven to be the most successful military alliance in history. It has the best armed forces in the world, many of whom have seen active combat in Afghanistan and some in Iraq. And France, under the leadership of President Nicolas Sarkozy, has rejoined the military command structure.
A new leadership is taking over in the key leadership positions. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen will become the new secretary-general later this fall. U.S. Adm. James Stavridis is the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the first time a navy admiral has held that position. And in September, French Air Force Gen. Stephane Abrial will assume the duties of Supreme Allied Commander Transformation in Norfolk, Va., becoming the first non-American ever to hold that post.
Furthermore, NATO has just completed a major study on "Joint Futures" means to sketch out the range of threats facing the alliance from conventional to the more exotic, a very good first step in helping the alliance think through the nature of the dangers it is prepared to counter. Clearly, the shift from a defense-based to a broader security-based alliance is essential. However, given domestic politics in the 28 member states, while intellectually straightforward, if not done carefully, this transformation could be the political equivalent of leaping across the Grand Canyon in two single bounds.
In negotiating this transformation from defense to security as the basis for the alliance, history offers a tempting way forward. In the mid-1960s, the alliance was divided over conventional defense versus nuclear deterrence. With growing Soviet capabilities in both conventional and nuclear forces, the United States argued for stressing the former. The European allies, not wanting either a conventional war in their back yards or having to spend more on conventional forces, favored nuclear deterrence. The solution was "flexible response."
Originally meant to defend across the entire conflict spectrum, the political brilliance of flexible response was that it allowed both sides of the Atlantic to emphasize their strategic preferences, relieving this political tension. What is needed is a new version of flexible response that enables member states to focus on the threats each view as most critical so the alliance is not forced into strategic platitudes or fundamental deadlock over the rationale underpinning the alliance. If this balance can be achieved, NATO could have at least another 60 years left. If not, we could end up reinventing an unsatisfactory replacement structure.
Harlan Ullman is a member of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Advisors Group and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the National Defense University. This essay was originally published as "NATO: Relevant or Relic?" in the Outside View column, part of UPI's Emerging Threats analysis section. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Publication:
Atlantic Council Highlights:
- Damon Wilson: Congressional Testimony on the Future of NATO
- Robert Hunter: Congressional Testimony on the Future of NATO
New Atlanticist Analysis:
- New NATO Concept a Chance for Europe to Recommit to Alliance – Jan Techau
- French NATO Return: Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship? – Steven Philip Kramer
- In the Shadow of NATO Exercises in Georgia: How Moscow Stopped Worrying and Decided to Embrace NATO – Donald K. Bandler and Jakub Kulhanek
- NATO Should Help in Pakistan – Leo Michel and Shuja Nawaz
- NATO Interests vs. National Interests – Jeffrey Lightfoot
- EU and NATO: Interlocking or Interblocking? – Stéphanie Hofmann and Kenneth Weisbrode
Comments
I believe NATO has already completed 60 years of service and is still going smooth. No matter who heads the organization, i believe the power is still vested in the joint decisions made by all the nations that form it.
I'm a bit confused about the title of this post, NATO has been consistently going quite smooth over the years and owing to its success in afghanistan and some more nations, it has quite a bright future.
I truly agree. With the long survival of NATO, its not individual power that made the organization strong.
I agree with what you said. SO far it's gone from bad to worse.
There is no telling how much longer and further this will go on.
Yes, i totally agree with you Tech frog.
NATO has established a tough wall that has been challenged and yet still standing. I see the this as no big deal and there is no problems as to who would lead. The power lies within it and not on the one individual only. PEACE!!!
I agree with this, but now I think they only causes more cost to the government.
thx....
Well if you are moving on 10 years old strategy then of course your efficiency will be lower, that's what happen to NATO. The new concept will revitalized the NATO and help Americans in achieving their goals. That's sounds good. Although during its 60 years work, it served for many good causes for America. We cannot ignore the role of NATO in Iraq war. That kind of revolution is required due to global challenges. Thanks.
Regards,
Morning Wishes
John
NATO members are more comfortable with traditional and proximate notions of territorial defense than with the newer expeditionary missions that have taken the alliance to its first ground war ever in Afghanistan, and it can be considered as another step towards World peace. Look forward to hearing more about what they come up with in their "Joint Ventures" study. It is important to know why any body exists and what it is focused on accomplishing.
60 years could be long enough to judge NATO and I believe that this organization has done a really good job in maintaining peace. However, there is no doubt that when people are involved in management, certain individuals needs will be catered most. We can't always see the real thing happening behind the curtain.
I'm not here to judge but just think about it. It is really all there is? Probably NO.
Ken,
Editor of Subconscious Mind Power
The aim of NATO towards military assistance might have fulfilled,but it has not got much success in providing peace because of the increasing threat of terrorism, but sometimes NATO is often used for the interests of the powerful countries.
but we still need NATO in dealing with many cases
And it may not need too popular role to make it successful. I think the ordinary public will just require few proofs to give trust.
yeah...i think that is ok
Yes, you are correct. I am also quite surprised by this post to be honest.
They do not need revitalization because the basic foundation will be kept the same. It is just not important to discuss the act. It is already affecting the world.
"NATO has already completed 60 years of service and is still going smooth" Yes it's true because they have a firm and steady foundation and will still become an powerful force in its region.
Mike
I don't think so. The organization is depent to their leadher. NATO not always revitalized, sometime they are relic.
NATO has done extremely well as far as maintaining order in some 'disturbed' parts of the world. I believe it is time the other nations like India, China, Japan and some more European nations which are in the developing-developed stages took some initiative in creating a new organisation similar to NATO.
Word.
I just can agree to Hair Plugs.
NATO did a great job...
I agree with Marvins post.
he's absolutely right.
Just one question:
Why do we still need the NATO?
There is no communistic threat...
Maybe NATO did a great job, but now, I don't think, that we still need this alliance...
Great post, certainly something we should keep in the back of our heads
ben 10 games
Some years ago the NATO have done a great job, but now I think the NATO causes cost only.
NATO did a great job in the last years. I think without the NATO the world would be another...
The NATO give all people peace and helps all people in the world. Look at Haiti at the moment, where people need the help for health
NATO has done extremely well as far as maintaining order in some 'disturbed' parts of the world
Great post, certainly something we should keep in the back of our heads. Our virtual school programs tries to teach the pros and cons of NATO. NATO has a long history for sure.
wow..great.....
Many NATO members are more comfortable with traditional and proximate notions of territorial defense than with the newer expeditionary missions that have taken the alliance to its first ground war ever in Afghanistan, and it can be considered as another step towards World peace.
In response to Furni, we still do need NATO, a unification of Nations for the greater good and stability is essential regardless of costs. France joining the military command structure was a good decision as well. Being a major nation in Europe will mean that another opinion will always make a difference in the final decision process.
Quote: "NATO has done extremely well as far as maintaining order in some 'disturbed' parts of the world. I believe it is time the other nations NATO has done extremely well as far as maintaining order in some 'disturbed' parts of the world. I believe it is time the other nations like India, China, Japan and some more European nations which are in the developing-developed stages took some initiative in creating a new organisation similar to NATO."
I couldn't have said it better. The only problem is, in this developing-developed countries, especially in eastern Europe is still too much chaos for an organisation you suggested. And the conflict of Serbia and Kosovo isn't so far from the european developed countries. So NATO is nesseceary to secure peace in this areas. Regards Koh Samui Villas
Exactly. Who could have foreseen what happened starting in 1991 in the former Yugoslavia? There should be a responsive force available no matter who they are aligned with. And by responsive I mean a little faster reaction time than the UN had in dealing with Rwanda. The web is full of stories about "too little, too late". At least NATO is still trying to be relevant.
NATO is an excellent topic for discussion here. NATO is still a reputable organization and I really think they are going through a state of redefining themselves. NATO will rise to be stronger than they are now.
we hope that NATO always neutral and do the best for peace
Exactly. Who could have foreseen what happened starting in 1991 in the former Yugoslavia? There should be a responsive force available no matter who they are aligned with. And by responsive I mean a little faster reaction time than the UN had in dealing with Rwanda. The web is full of stories about "too little, too late". At least NATO is still trying to be relevant.
What you need is NATO
The web is full of stories about
porno |
porno |
betsson |
too little, too late". At least NATO is still trying to be relevant.
I truly agree with you,at least NATO is still trying to be relevant.NATO has done extremely well as far as maintaining order in some 'disturbed' parts of the world.
Yes, of course, NATO has done lot of thing regarding a better and saver world. And I also agree with "Tech Frog" that for the past 60 years, NATO has a great service and is still going smooth.
Regard
Arief: Leather Recliners owner
where is my comment????
"What is needed is a new version of flexible response that enables member states to focus on the threats each view as most critical so the alliance is not forced into strategic platitudes or fundamental deadlock over the rationale underpinning the alliance. If this balance can be achieved, NATO could have at least another 60 years left."
I agree and this should happen sooner than later. Canada was a founding member of NATO and Canadian troops are currently serving in Afghanistan with ISAF and other places around the world as part of our NATO commitments.
We must come to grips with tough problems. Defense spending is down. The organization is falling apart and needs overhaul. And in dealing with this, the leadership is absent. But we need the turnaround to protect our families. I do hope that the new leadership can make a difference, but am naturally skeptical. Thank you, knitzees organic baby hats
thx...
I think Nato is putting it's fingers into too many pies! Thanks for the post, interesting read.
NATO is crazy, I really don't think its effective.
woi.....
With problems in Southern Sudan, NATO will soon have another leg in the conflict soup.
Apartments in Kampala
i do also think we soon will see nato do more new stuff to make all things much better. but the laan is just really big around the world.. so we must hope that there will be an uptour soon
thx for info..
NATO is an excellent topic for discussion here. NATO is still a reputable organization and I really think they are going through a state of redefining themselves. NATO will rise to be stronger than they are now.
Maybe it's not perfect and probably needs some sort of revitalization, but still ... even in current status better than nothing.
NATO Rocks!
Post new comment