LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Summer 2007

by Mihael Brejc

Sir,
Doubts over the relevance of NATO in today’s security climate have been on the increase in recent years, especially since 9/11 when many politicians on both sides of the Atlantic began to question the role of the alliance. The war in Iraq has not dispersed the clouds hanging over NATO’s future, and today there is a widespread feeling that the organisation is at a crossroads. De Gaulle once said that all alliances are like roses − they wither and decay. If NATO wants to avoid that fate, a range of serious issues have to be discussed. These should include both NATO’s military tasks and also its political function in a fast changing world.

As Rob de Wijk observes, the core question is what role do NATO members want the alliance to perform? The Strategic Concept of 1999 reiterated the basic goals that held true during and after the cold war: NATO's fundamental purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Yet despite such apparent steadfastness of purpose, NATO is clearly facing an identity crisis. This is partly caused by divisions among European members, but is mainly down to the rift between the US and Europe over the best way to deal with current threats to NATO security. The breakdown of the transatlantic security consensus, and the deepest crisis in NATO’s recent history, was caused neither by a lack of collective military power nor differences in member states´ fighting capabilities. It was due to fundamental political disagreements over how to use NATO’s military might.

Rob de Wijk suggests that NATO’s future lies within the dual military functions of strategic coercion to win wars, plus stabilisation and reconstruction to win the “peace”. I disagree. His proposition would diminish the alliance’s potential political role, which I believe should be increased rather than reduced. Military force should above all be used for defensive purposes and any military transformation of NATO must be accompanied by a decisive move towards more frequent political debates. Greater political discussion would allow the organisation to take better account of the constantly changing global security circumstances and to improve coordination with the wider international community. It would also permit NATO to accommodate the planned strategic role of the EU and help to abolish the existing political double standards that view debates in the EU and the UN as a demonstration of their vitality, but discussion within NATO as a sign of its incompetence or even impending demise.

The transformation of NATO would also be an opportunity for Europe to obtain a stronger voice within the alliance, which in turn would oblige us to face up to our responsibilities in the security field, financially and logistically. After all, if the EU plans to be a global force, it must develop as a defence force and improve both its military capabilities and the compatibility of its member states’ armed services. But rather than simply increasing defence spending, EU nations should be encouraged to make their military expenditures more efficient, which will require effective cooperation with NATO as well as better European interoperability.