This House would disband NATO

Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China?[1]

[1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008

Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these.[1]

[1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010

There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.”[1]

[1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008

NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’.[1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy. 

[1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.

The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world. 

NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I. 

Maintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves.[1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still struggles to redefine itself, why spend money on it?

[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements. 

Originally, NATO had a clearly defined purpose and a common enemy: the Soviet bloc. With the demise of that shared enemy, NATO’s original purpose has disappeared but its well-functioning military structure remained, leaving it open to be seized by opportunistic politicians in a classic case of ‘scope creep’. This has happened with U.S. President George Bush jr.’s push to let Ukraine and Georgia in as new members in his global campaign to spread democracy. This has only served to increase tensions with Russia (see next argument). Who is to say that something similar isn’t going to happen vis-à-vis China?[1]

[1] Hamilton, Time to disband Nato now the Cold War is over? 2008

Continued existence of NATO doesn’t make the world less safe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is only natural for the members of NATO to have been trying to define a new purpose. But discussing to define a new threat, whether that be an enemy state or a broader global security threat, isn’t the same as creating that threat. It’s not NATO’s so-called ‘scope creep’ that makes the world more unsafe, it is actual threats that make the world unsafe, and NATO’s formidable military structure can be useful in combating these.[1]

[1] NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010

There are two issues keeping Russia cautious of NATO as a military alliance. The first is a proposal by the U.S. to put up a missile defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic and on warships in the Black Sea under the flag of NATO to protect against missiles from Iran or North Korea, which, according to Russia, would never fly over these countries in any attack. Russia concludes that the missile defence system therefore must be directed at them. The second issue is NATO’s plans to expand with Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia has traditionally regarded as part of their ‘sphere of influence’. As Russian president Medvedev stated in 2008: “No state can be pleased about having representatives of a military bloc to which it does not belong coming close to its borders.”[1]

[1] BBC News. Medvedev warns on Nato expansion. 2008

NATO cooperates with Russia to decrease tensions. Since 2002, NATO and Russia have an on-going dialogue to discuss strategic issues in the NATO-Russia Council. This Council aims to ‘enhance political consultation and practical cooperation with Russia in areas of shared interests’ with Russia as a ‘true strategic partner’.[1] Obviously, political differences over specific issues remain: NATO stresses Georgia’s and Ukraine’s sovereignty and maintains an open door policy for their membership if they themselves want this. What matters is that through this on-going, institutionalized dialogue, NATO makes clear it sees Russia as a strategic partner, and possibly even as a future member, not as a potential enemy. 

[1] NATO. NATO’s relations with Russia.

The clause that ‘an attack against one means an attack against all’ (Article V) runs the risk of entangling the entire alliance in an unwanted conflict. This has happened before: World War I started out as a local conflict between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia, but through their security alliances inadvertently drew in all the major powers of the world. Given that many members of NATO have unstable countries near their borders (i.e. Turkey bordering Iraq) there is a risk they could become involved in a small regional war, which then inadvertently draws in the entire world. 

NATO has sufficient safeguards to prevent accidental escalation. Article V indeed specifies that members commit themselves to assisting a fellow member when attacked, but this clause leaves enough room to remain on the safe side. First of all, the clause is only defensive, to ensure that NATO doesn’t become involved in a war of choice of any of its members, like the Gulf War. Secondly, article V allows members to choose their assistance in proportion to the actual security threat and according to their own means and goals, instead of the automatic triggers that led to World War I. 

Maintaining an administration for NATO, with personnel and buildings, costs money. Moreover, whenever NATO-members engage in a mission, they’re supposed to fund their activities under these missions themselves.[1] Given that the original threat has passed and given that the organisation still struggles to redefine itself, why spend money on it?

[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

NATO does not cont too much it saves money. Through joint exercises and sharing intelligence, member states learn to cooperate and communicate more effectively with each other, saving efforts when, if ever, they are forced to cooperate. These benefits alone are worthwhile. Moreover, defence contractors could expect a larger, more unified market, thus driving down average cost per unit, because of NATO’s efforts in standardizing requirements. 

In spite of all the bickering, the members of the NATO-alliance still face shared threats: a nuclear armed North-Korea for example, but also international terrorism, threats to international security stemming from weak or failed states and a possibility of a nuclear Iran. As in the past, NATO provides an institutionalized dialogue between partners with shared interest: America has an easily accessible diplomatic forum through which it can garner an international coalition for its policies, and European member states can benefit from access to US military technology and know-how. That’s why throughout 2010 and 2011 NATO has successfully formulated a new ‘Strategic Concept’, a joint strategic vision shared by all members, as well as a policy to improve NATO’s involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction.[1]

[1] NATO. Key NATO policy on stabilisation and reconstruction released to the public. 2011. NATO. NATO adopts new Strategic Concept. 2010.

Strategic alliances should reflect the specific interests they serve. The threats mentioned are global threats affecting all developed countries, but they affect different countries differently. For example, Australia and New-Zealand are closer to North-Korea than Europe is. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with U.S.? Indonesia and India are growing economies and burgeoning democracies, both regularly suffering terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t they be in a strategic alliance with the U.S. and Europe? Turkey continues to have a different strategic view of the threat Iran poses and has a radically divergent strategic interest in Cyprus than the EU-members in NATO. Why is the EU allied with them through NATO whilst it has opposing strategic interests?

Without a clearly defined shared purpose and shared enemy, NATO will remain a talking shop where members with divergent interests will continue to frustrate any possible ‘coalition of the willing’, rendering NATO practically useless.

When in early 2011 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, calling upon countries and regional organizations to take “all necessary measures” to protect the citizens of Libya against its dictator Ghaddafi, NATO provided effective support through their ‘Operation Unified Protector’, through which it enforced the arms embargo against Ghaddafi and the no-fly zone over Libya. Moreover, the smooth cooperation between France, the UK and the US in their active campaign to provide air support for the rebels in Libya has probably been made easier by the previous cooperation these countries have had through NATO. 

NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO.[1]

[1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

As of yet, the European Union has little independent military capability to intervene in regional conflicts in neighbouring countries. The relevance of this became glaringly apparent during the 1990’s Bosnian war and later, the Kosovo War: the EU called for the ending of hostilities but only when NATO and/or the UN became involved militarily, was peace effectively enforced. Consequently, in 2002 NATO and the EU agreed on the Berlin Plus Agreement, allowing the EU to use NATO assets, provided no NATO members vetoed it. Under this agreement, the EU has been able to hold their own peacekeeping missions in the Republic of Macedonia (EUFOR Concordia) and Bosnia Herzegovina to oversee the Dayton Agreement (EUFOR Althea).[1]

[1] NATO. NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership.

The EU would do better to develop its own military capability. Slowly but surely, the European Union is attempting to build its own defence capability through the Common Security and Defence Policy, with a strategy, defence agency and coordinating official separate from NATO. The process of creating this is slow, because it involves EU-member states sharing the sovereign control of the monopoly of violence on their territories. The EU wants this because in its own region, the EU has its own interests which it wants to protect by itself. Moreover, why would NATO-members outside of the EU consider it fair that their collective assets are used for Europe’s particular interests, especially when it involves their own related interest, as for example Turkey’s strenuous relation to the Berlin Plus Agreement shows?[1]

[1] Ülgen, The Evolving EU, NATO, and Turkey Relationship.

For many members, maintaining a fully operational military that has all the required capabilities (air, sea and land plus required logistics) is impossible: they don’t have enough budget, manpower or political will to maintain a full military. NATO allows members to share their burdens and to specialise. Examples of this are NATO’s AWACS-aircraft (Airborne Warning & Control System) and NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability. Both are instances of NATO-allies pooling resources and sharing burdens.[1]

[1] NATO. AWACS: NATO’s ‘eye in the sky’.

NATO has allowed many members a free ride on U.S. military capability. The little ‘burden sharing’ that is going on can’t hide the fact that the main contributor is the U.S. and that especially the EU-members have not been investing enough in their own military capability. This has led to NATO becoming, in the words of U.S. Defence Secretary, a “two-tiered alliance” between “those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership”. As long as Europe continues to take a free ride on the U.S., it will never be able to either shoulder its fair share of the burden, or operate independently outside of NATO.[1]

[1] Gates, Transcript of Defense Secretary Gates’s Speech on NATO’s Future. 2011