Posted on 06/28/2002 6:33:31 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
If NATO is to keep its rightful place in preserving trans-Atlantic security and stability, then the big Prague summit this November must not only be about enlarging the alliance and clarifying its purpose as advertised. The allies must also limit NATO's future role, both geographically and politically, so that enlargement doesn't wind up weakening the alliance.The race for membership is entering the final stretch. The leaders of the nine candidates for membership will meet next week in Riga to ready themselves for a final push toward Prague.
All the signs suggest the U.S. and the European allies will support a "Big Bang" enlargement to include the three Baltic states, possibly Romania and Bulgaria, and Slovenia and Slovakia. In going up to 26 members from 19, the allies must think carefully about what kind of NATO they want to have in the years ahead with the security environment already in such flux.
In the wake of September 11, American maneuvering is less related to (and less dependent on) NATO than ever. U.S. President George W. Bush has decided to do away with dated security concepts such as containment (and, to some extent, deterrence), opting instead for mobility, flexibility, and broad-based short-term coalition building.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the Europeans are upset about their inability to constrain the U.S., fearing the alliance is losing its relevance as America shuns the military help of the allies and turns its unilateralist gaze toward Iraq and Central Asia.
Amidst all the uncertainty, NATO must stay true to its core mission and identity. Membership shouldn't be extended beyond the North Atlantic region that gives NATO its name and its rationale for existence. Giving NATO an ambitious global role is dangerous; in so doing the U.S. and Europe risk making NATO a political club useful for little else but photo opportunities.
That said, NATO's charge to protect the North Atlantic region now includes a demand for a strong "out-of-area" military capacity. That is sorely lacking now. Indeed, were NATO stronger, the alliance could take part in any military action in Iraq along with the U.S., which now seems resigned to fight there, if need be, through a smaller, a la carte, coalition.
So, with enlargement on the horizon, how can NATO forge a common purpose and develop the means to achieve it?
For the current members, that means getting serious about boosting defense modernization efforts in Europe to enable them to fight alongside the Americans. For the U.S., that means a clear commitment to NATO as a reality rather than a myth, good for a nostalgic laugh among senior Pentagon brass.
The future members have a role here, too. As the heads of state of the so-called "Vilnius 10" gather in Riga, they will be well-advised not to focus too much on patting each other on the back for getting past Russian and Western reservations about their future membership in the alliance. Instead, they must make clear what their contribution to the alliance will be politically and militarily.
That means a serious commitment to keep up military improvements that, as in the case of the Baltics only picked up pace in recent years. And in Slovakia and Slovenia, leaders must address the growing resentment against NATO among their publics.
Many of the new members will indeed have severe deficiencies in capabilities and strategic readiness -- just as the first three entrants from eastern Europe did in 1999. Yet the contributions of NATO's eastern additions must be symbiotic, not just symbolic: Lithuania has already, for one, played small but important roles in Balkan peacekeeping missions. Above all, the new additions must show the old members that they'll attend vigorously to NATO's new priorities, even when such objectives are unpopular at home.
The Prague summit should also consider alternatives to membership that allow for diplomatic overtures to be made to nonmember countries in or beyond Europe that share its security agenda. Last month's deal to create a "NATO at 20" between the allies and Russia should serve as a model.
In this case, as in possible future others, NATO shouldn't risk being "de-regionalized" by extending full membership to such countries, and it need not do so. NATO will become politically diffuse and militarily inept if its members share only a need for security and not a common vision of how to achieve it.
To regain vitality, NATO must not only limit its membership to allies with similar agendas. It must also limit itself to serving the common interests of its members. The international order does not need another U.N. Security Council; and the Bush administration certainly will not fight wars through a similarly constituted body.
So, false hopes of NATO membership in states as distant as Central Asia must be gently but decisively dismissed. The concept of NATO as a political organization with a military foundation does not work; in Kosovo and Afghanistan, political comradeship did little to breach the severe military gap between the allies. It is far more useful to revert to NATO's original construction -- a military organization with a political foundation -- and to strive for a strengthening of capabilities and a common vision of purpose that will ensure the alliance's vitality.
Already, the Europeans and the Americans are finding it difficult to agree much of the time, and the two sides' strategic cultures are among the most similar in the world. We cannot expect out-of-region friends to approach security problems the same way.
Finally, there exists the question of the future beyond the foreseeable. Terrorism may be the predominant threat of our time, but will it be the predominant threat in 2025? We don't know what the coming years hold. Better then to keep the alliance tightly integrated, maximizing responsiveness to the needs of Europe and the U.S.
Mr. Isenberg and Mr. Grgic are on staff at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (International Security and East Europe Programs, respectively) in Washington D.C.
I know....the prevent the illegal importation of Polish sausage.....no?
OK I give up....
Is this a trick question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.