NATO – with or without the US?
Daniel Korski 3:54pm
Over on Foreign Policy magazine, Andrew J Bacevich and I are going at each other. Topic: the nature of the transatlantic relationship. In the slipstream of US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ lament about Europeans’ pacifist leanings, Professor Bacevich wrote a delightfully provocative piece arguing the US should leave NATO:
Rushing to the defence of the alliance, I argued that the article missed a fundamental point: that The United States and Europe are the best allies they've each got. Yes, they have similar traditions, share values, and have a long history of cooperation behind them. But most importantly, they are on the same side of today's geopolitical dividing line: Both are declining powers. Only cooperation can stem the decline and judging Europeans only on their commitment to the Afghan mission would be a mistake:"If NATO has a future, it will find that future back where the alliance began: in Europe. NATO's founding mission of guaranteeing the security of European democracies has lost none of its relevance. Although the Soviet threat has vanished, Russia remains. And Russia, even if no longer a military superpower, does not exactly qualify as a status quo country. The Kremlin nurses grudges and complaints, not least of them stemming from NATO's own steady expansion eastward.So let NATO attend to this new (or residual) Russian problem. Present-day Europeans -- even Europeans with a pronounced aversion to war -- are fully capable of mounting the defenses necessary to deflect a much reduced Eastern threat. So why not have the citizens of France and Germany guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania, instead of fruitlessly demanding that Europeans take on responsibilities on the other side of the world that they can't and won't?"
So who is right, me or him?"So to judge allies on whether they are willing to join NATO's fight against the Taliban is shortsighted. Imagine if the United States had in the past chosen its allies exclusively on whether they were willing to fight alongside the 82nd Airborne. That would have meant abandoning an alliance with Britain in 1966 after then-Prime Minister Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to the Vietnam War"
Previous
Colin
March 2nd, 2010 4:05pm Report this commentWhy do we need NATO when we have the EU?
After all, the EU has guaranteed peace and stability in Europe for the last 50 years or so...
Hasn't it?
Robby
March 2nd, 2010 4:08pm Report this commentHow amusing, without the USA there can be no NATO. Anyone who has served in HM Forces could tell you that without US funding and political support NATO would cease to be.
Sir Graphus
March 2nd, 2010 4:31pm Report this commentNo, Colin, it has merely stopped us fighting each other, and prevented German domination ... oh.
Austin Barry
March 2nd, 2010 4:53pm Report this commentAs I posted elsewhere, of the 28 NATO members only the UK, US and Canada have a record of winning wars and invariably do the heavy-lifting.
The others are pacifists or white-flag wavers.
It will be interesting to see what position NATO and the EU adopt when the Iran balloon finally goes up.
Scary Biscuits
March 2nd, 2010 4:55pm Report this commentColin, I know you're being sarcastic with your question and, yes, I agree with you that the EU is a bit of a joke from a detterence point of view. But I think the argument here is that it will remain a joke whilst it can continue to rely on the US for all the heavy stuff. Much better for the US to withdraw and force the EU to be more serious about its own defence (both from Russia and Islamists).
Daniel says that the US and Europe are the best allies that they each have. This the is the classic Europhile logical error, where belief in the structure is equated with belief in being friends. That is, if you are against the EU, you want to be enemies with Europe or you are a little Englander. Similarly, Daniel makes the same error here by equating the US leaving NATO with the EU and the US not being friends anymore when, in fact, the opposite could easily be the case. Free of outdated obligations and foreign entanglements a more genuine friendship would be likely to emerge.
mike
March 2nd, 2010 5:26pm Report this commentHim, we wouldnt be a declining power if we would invest in ourselvesinstead of in Europe and the rest of the worl which is descending into hell
2trueblue
March 2nd, 2010 7:34pm Report this commentLets see who will help us stand our ground in the Falklands and then all will be clear. How much diplomatic help will our European friends offer us? If my memory serves me France were no help last time.
perdix
March 2nd, 2010 7:44pm Report this commentAs was said years ago the purpose of NATO was to keep the Russians "out", the Germans "down" and the US "in".
mitcheltj
March 2nd, 2010 8:05pm Report this commentIf NATO did not exist, would anyone be arguing for its invention now? I think not. These bureaucratic international institutions tend to take on a life of their own, long after the reasons for their being created have disappeared. I sometimes think we would not be stuck in Afghanistan but for NATO and their desire to have something to justify their existence. The existence of NATO also encourages the dismaying tendency of the UK to try to punch above its economic weight, and costly nonsense like the European fighter aircraft project.
But it would take political leaders of courage and vision to close NATO down and put something in its place too fit the 21st century. Where are Bevin, Acheson, Truman and Marshall when you need them?
thomas
March 3rd, 2010 7:23am Report this commentI think the Americans may even be thinking about leaving. Hence their cavalier attitude to British sensibilities over the Falklands, Gates' speech, and a general sense they are withdrawing their attention from the continent.
Whether Britian would want to contribute to a post-US NATO is an interesting question. Do we really want to protect Poland's borders? The Russians aren't going to get over here even if they do try to cause trouble in the East.
The Laughing Cavalier
March 3rd, 2010 8:24am Report this comment"Why not have the citizens of France and Germany guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania?" Why not indeed, it worked a treat last time?
The Laughing Cavalier
March 3rd, 2010 8:25am Report this commentDeGaulle must be chortling in his grave to read this
oxforduniversity
March 3rd, 2010 10:31am Report this commentNo, Russia is a global Superpower, even still a massive military superpower as well. Here's the verified sources below.
Netanyahu calls Russia an important Superpower
Voice of America News editor by Robert Berger Feb. 15, 2010
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Netanyahu-Heads-to-Russia-with-Call-for-Crippling-Sanctions-on-Iran-84341537.html
Transcript: Russia a Superpower in every Aspect
Premier.gov.ru - Feb. 16, 2010
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/9424/
"Netanyahu: Russia is an important "superpower"
ISRIA.com; Feb. 16, 2010
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/861/primeministerputinneten.jpg
Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors (Superpower Neighbor Russia)
News Az Tue 02 March 2010 by Akper Hasanov
http://www.news.az/articles/10482
A Superpower Is Reborn
The New York Times: August 24, 2008
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6527&Itemid=68&lang=ka
oxforduniversity
March 3rd, 2010 10:40am Report this commentNo, Russia is a global Superpower, even still a massive military superpower as well. Here's the verified sources below.
Netanyahu calls Russia an important Superpower
Tim
December 29th, 2010 11:05am Report this commentLet the Russia in, and you won't need the USA.
Just because it doesn't make any sense when there's a whole continental alliance and territory deffence.
Back to top