LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
on Julian Lindley-French's "Why America is stuck with NATO"
Spring 2007
Sir,
Julian Lindley-French's article acknowledged the positive role of NATO for Europe and listed the reasons why it could be confident about continued US commitment to the alliance. The accompanying Commentary by Maria Wagrowska painted a gloomier picture, blaming the present “provocative” US administration for NATO’s problems.
Lindley-French also seemed to consider NATO primarily a British construct, minimising the roles played both by the US and by continental European leaders such as Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, both of whom were key promoters of the transatlantic alliance.
However, neither author addressed the three central issues confronting NATO today, which are the redefinition of its aims, methods and geographic remit.
In the Cold War era, NATO clearly defined its enemy in ideological, strategic and geopolitical terms − although it was less clear about the definition of the values of freedom, tolerance and democracy that it was supposed to defend. Now NATO’s prime objective is “the fight against terrorism”, a very murky and ill-used concept.
The Iraq operation was both a major blow to NATO cohesion and disastrous for the stability and democratic prospects of the Greater Middle East. Iraq’s former President, the late Saddam Hussein, was a parochial dictator with neither weapons of mass destruction (WMD) nor links to terrorist organisations. But neighbouring Iran is developing WMD and sponsoring terrorism worldwide, both directly and through such satellite organisations as those now active in post-war Iraq. Iran is today threatening Israel, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf.
NATO’s geographic scope of operations self-evidently needs redefinition, considering that its current mission in far off Afghanistan is so essential for the transatlantic allies own defence. Nor can NATO continue to ignore regions like the Middle East or the Indian subcontinent, no matter how distant they may be from the Atlantic.
Defence is a hugely complex subject, concerned with far more than the deployment of weapons and armies. This was true even in Cold War days, and few would argue that the western nuclear missile deterrent – or any other of its weapons for that matter – was the primary cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union. NATO should address the complexities of modern security as well as the more technical mechanisms of defence.
It is time to stop searching for scapegoats for NATO’s problems, whether in the US or Europe. Both sides of the alliance must get together and face up to their joint responsibility to think about their common security goals and interests and how best to achieve them.