Whither NATO?

“The most successful military alliance in history” is onedescription. Another is “brain dead.” And a third is “obsolete.”

The fact is that all the above descriptions of the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organisation are correct in varying degrees along with “guarantorof peace in Europe” and the “military heart of the Western Alliance.”

It is also true to say that the alliance is in crisis. Toparaphrase Dean Acheson’s description of post-imperial Britain, NATO won theCold War and has yet to find a new role in the world.

If one starts from the assumption that NATO is a force forgood than it is essential that the alliance re-discover its role in the world.To do that it needs to re-evaluate the circumstances and values that led to itsformation 70 years ago; examine how the world has stayed the same; how it haschanged; and then change and adapt.

In 1949, the world was only four years out of a world war. Americahad emerged enormously wealthy, militarily powerful and armed with the world’sfirst true weapon of mass destruction. Its ideological enemy the Soviet Unionhad absorbed Eastern Europe and seemed poised to send its steamroller armyacross the rest of the devastated continent. It was four months away fromdetonating its first atomic bomb. Britain—which had been charged with theresponsibility of protecting post war Europe—was broke and broken, and appealedto America to fill the vacuum. China was soon to “fall” to Mao’s communists andslip behind a bamboo curtain for 30 years. Former enemies Germany and Japanwere as distrusted as the Soviet Union. There were only 59 members of theUnited Nations as most of the future 193-strong membership was still colonies.

NATO had a clear purpose: To protect the democracies ofWestern Europe from Soviet aggression so that they could recover from adevastating world war; preserve the shared values of economic and politicalliberalism; protect traditional markets and prevent a third world war. LordIsmay, NATO’s first Secretary General, declared that the purpose of the alliancewas to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.”

It was a Euro-centric world. There was a strong kith and kinlink across the Atlantic. Out of an American population of 150 million, a totalof 134 million claimed European origins. Europe was the traditional market forAmerica and vice versa, and two world wars and a potful of cash had awakenedthe US to the realization that its 162-year-old isolationism was nowirrelevant.

So what has changed and what is the same?

The Soviet Union no longer exists. Former Soviet satellitesare now NATO allies. Germany is now the economic powerhouse of an economicallyunited Europe which is inching towards political union. The EU is the world’slargest trading bloc and the economic interdependence it has created has madewar between its members almost unthinkable. The United States’ share of theworld’s GDP has dropped slightly from a height of 28 percent of the total toabout 25 percent. This plus the economic rise of the rest of the world, hasrevived its old isolationism combined with a new unilateralism which is puttingWashington increasingly at odds with its NATO allies.

Russia lost the Cold War and its conventional forces are amere shadow of its 1949 levels when 4.5 million Soviet soldiers were based inEastern Europe. But Russia still has 6,500 nuclear weapons and has breached a1987 treaty banning Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces in Europe. PresidentVladimir Putin is also developing a formidable cyber warfare capability and isas active as the Soviet Union ever was in the espionage field. Moscow, however,is a corrupt economic basket case. Russia’s GDP is less than half that ofGermany while its population is almost twice as big. Putin is clearly investingin achieving the biggest bang for a diminishing buck. Conflict on theideological battlefield has dramatically changed. Moscow is now driven by acombination of nationalism, ages old paranoia, nostalgia for the Soviet andTsarist Empire, and a dislike of western liberal values. Its former satellitesregard themselves as under constant threat and it is no surprise that they areleading the way in achieving the NATO target of spending two percent of GDP ondefence.

China has lifted its bamboo curtain and adopted a successfulcapitalist economic structure operating within a centralised communistpolitical structure. With the world’s largest population and fast growingpopulation, the Chinese are set to overtake the United States in both economicand military terms by the middle of the century—if not sooner. Many in Americasee Beijing as the biggest threat to America’s top dog status and advocateshifting resources from the North Atlantic region to the Pacific Rim. Europeansvacillate between viewing the Chinese as a market opportunity one day and aneconomic and military threat the next.

The colonial problem is largely a thing of the past. But ithas been replaced by Islamic Jihadism which has replaced communism as theideological threat. The big difference is that communism claimed aphilosophical truth based on historical precedent. As such it could becountered with carefully constructed logical arguments. Islamic Jihadism is themilitary arm of an opposing all-embracing religion that brooks no argumentbecause its adherents believe they are directed by God.

Finally, the world has shrunk since 1949. Every square inchof Earth is now threatened by anyone equipped with a nuclear weapon and amissile system capable of delivering it to its target. Space technology isopening a new weapons frontier and cyber warfare has the capability of knockingout an entire economy without a shot being fired. The old geographicconstraints have disappeared.

The changes are frightening because the threats are morecomplex than they were in 1949. But some things are the same. The Russians,Chinese and Jihadists are centralised totalitarian structures. They reject thevalues of NATO countries which remain bastions of western liberal values suchas human rights, individual liberties, the rule of law and free enterprise. IfNATO is to be revived it must reaffirm the basic values that united them 70years ago and develop structures that reflect the constant need to protectthem.

Tom Arms is the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War.” He is currently working on a book about Anglo-American relations.

Comments

Popular Posts