More

NATO Future Raises Questions: U.S. And Europe Rethink Role Of Cold War Alliance

ROBERT BURNS   04/21/10 07:23 AM ET   AP

Nato Future Us Europe
Hillary Clinton will be involved with talks on the future of NATO.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to a meeting of NATO ministers in Estonia at a time when the 61-year-old organization is suffering from a kind of mid-life crisis.

Almost 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in the midst of an intense self-examination, trying to rethink its basic purpose.

NATO was founded to blunt the long-extinct threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

Now it finds itself divided on many fronts: doubts among some members about its combat mission in Afghanistan, unease with the continuing presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, prickly relations with Moscow and concerns about the wisdom of expanding NATO deeper into Russia's backyard.

Clinton and 27 of her NATO counterparts will gather Thursday in Tallinn, capital of the former Soviet state of Estonia, where they're expected to take stock of the alliance and the challenges it faces.

Among the most difficult issues on the agenda are NATO's outlook for success in Afghanistan and the prospects for putting the Balkan nation of Bosnia on track toward NATO membership.

The foreign ministers also are expected to debate the future of the U.S. nuclear umbrella for Europe, which boils down to a question of whether to withdraw the remaining Cold War-era U.S. nuclear weapons there.

The Tallinn meeting, in fact, could split over the question of whether it's time to remove an estimated 200 U.S. nuclear bombs that remain at six air bases in five NATO countries.

The Obama administration hasn't taken a public position on the fate of this small but politically nettlesome nuclear arsenal. Administration officials say NATO should debate the matter and make a collective decision.

But the U.S. is trying to persuade Russia to match any Western reductions of these short-range nuclear weapons with cuts of its own. Some in Europe, including the Germans, are less certain that such linkage is needed.

The meeting also is likely to review progress in rewriting what NATO calls its "strategic concept," updating its mission statement for the first time since 1999.

That document predated the Sept. 11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the August 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, which is eagerly pursuing NATO membership.

A final draft spelling out NATO's new mission is to be endorsed when President Barack Obama and other alliance leaders meet in November.

U.S. relations with Europe have deteriorated in recent years, in part due to opposition inside the alliance to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of Obama's main foreign policy goals upon entering the White House was to repair ties with Europe, while also "resetting" relations with Russia, which regards NATO expansion as a threat to its influence in the former Soviet Union.

There is no serious talk inside NATO of dismantling the alliance but, as analyst Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it in an interview, "Some are questioning what it's for."

The original purpose was framed in purely defensive terms: to protect Western Europe from a potential land invasion by the USSR.

Today there is no USSR, and no credible military threat to NATO as a whole. But the Russia-Georgia war served as a reminder to other former Soviet republics that are now NATO members – like the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – that their neighborhood is still dangerous.

NATO's Western European members, including Germany, are more likely to view Russia as a major trading partner and source of natural gas and oil.

Central and eastern European members of the alliance view Russia more uneasily because of Moscow's history as an imperial power. The new members of the NATO club tend to see the alliance's nuclear arsenal as a counterbalance to Russia's military might.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary-general, thinks the organization should work more closely with other military alliances far beyond Europe's borders – to include rising powers China and India. He says the Afghanistan war experience has shown the need for such global linkages.

"But some fear NATO stretching itself too thin," he told a University of Chicago audience on April 8. "Others are afraid that NATO wants to rival the U.N. For these reasons, among others, there is hesitation about NATO engaging more systematically with countries like India or China."

Cybersecurity is emerging as a major worry for NATO, and Estonia is a fitting venue for discussing this emerging threat.

In April and May 2007, during heightened tensions between Russia and Estonia, hackers unleashed a wave of cyber attacks that crippled dozens of Estonian government and corporate sites in one of the world's most wired countries.

Estonian authorities traced the attacks to Russia and suggested they had been orchestrated by the Kremlin – a charge Moscow denied.

Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO commander in Europe, says the 2007 case – and the prospect of others to come – poses a hard question for the alliance.

The NATO credo of "an attack on one is an attack on all" is the fundamental pledge by all signatories to the NATO founding treaty. But does a cyber attack against one NATO member compel the alliance as a whole to come to that country's defense?

"In 1949 when the treaty was written, no one could have conceived this cyber world," Stavridis said in a Feb. 2 speech.

"In NATO in particular, in my view, we need to talk about what defines an attack ... because in this unsettled sea in which we sail, I believe it is more likely that an attack will come not off the bomb rack of an aircraft but as electrons moving down a fiber optic cable."

While the meeting is expected to focus on security issues, some see the upcoming meeting in Tallinn as, in part, a chance for a little marriage counseling.

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb says the meeting could help the U.S. and its European allies air pent-up frustrations and ease tensions. "I feel it is time for the grumpy old Atlantic couples to renew their wedding vows," he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to a meeting of NATO ministers in Estonia at a time when the 61-year-old organization is suffering from a kind of mid-life crisi...
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is heading to a meeting of NATO ministers in Estonia at a time when the 61-year-old organization is suffering from a kind of mid-life crisi...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:47 PM on 04/21/2010
I think US preemptive doctrine has worn out NATO.

Poor NATO members have suddenly woke up realizing they are fighting a war in Afghanistan nobody has a clue what is good for.

Europeans are smarter than Americans and soon withdraw their soldiers, despite of Obama' s charm offensive in the world.

Obama is using Afghanistan and Iraq to put pressure on Iran, but it looks that his own alliance is in much worse shape than Mullahs in Iran.

Once NATO leaves, US will Leave and once US leaves, we will have revolts against our poppet regimes in ME. Israel has to sign a peace agreement and the only superpower of the world will be like any other country.

Thank you for watching raise and demise of the last imperialist power of the world!
03:14 PM on 04/21/2010
It's time to scrap this cold war relic, it's useless other than to add more burocratic jobs and feed the MIC. Let Europe defend itself, if not, what's the point of the European Union?
03:50 PM on 04/21/2010
Let me just add, NATO has lost it's main mission, the Soviets ain't coming. There is also the way certain European countries look at Russia, as some one stated, the west needs it as an energy supplier while some in the east look at it as a threat. One reason the Baltic countries should never have been let in, it's their neighborhood. If the Estonians and the Russians get into a pissing contest over energy prices or cheese and someone starts shooting, are Americans willing to die for that? Doubt it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
11:37 AM on 04/21/2010
We are no longer protecting anyone - just attempting to control them, primarily through the control of the oil resources and its supply lines. But this cannot work for too much longer. Instead of finding a new rationale for NATO Afghanistan is killing NATO alliance. I think it is in the American long term interest to have Europe on its side but European interests are diverging from the phony US interests. Once Europe decouples just a little more they might see their future as more connected with the Eurasian continent than with Atlantic Ocean. I think this might be a long term mistake for both the US and Europe but what the US is currently doing is more likely to push them away from us than closer to us.

I agree with you that we have been wasting precious resources on our military empire which now exists for its reasons, utterly disconnected from the interest of the American people. The empire has become one giant leach that will eventually destroy us.
03:17 PM on 04/21/2010
Well stated sposton.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William50
11:03 AM on 04/21/2010
Europe, Japan and any other group of nations protected by the US military have for decades used what would have been money for protection and put it into rebuilding their country to compete against the US. That is about the best way I can say it. While the USA fights and protects they rebuilt their industries with US backed loans to compete against and to sell you goods now not made here!
If you say UN forces you mean US money, equipment and people.
It is time for a few decades that the USA, our government and the bank of the American government to re-invest in the USA.
Decide which two nations in Europe or on the MED. that you want a huge supply base located in and pull out our men and war machines saying to the rest of Europe, police yourself. Israel, purchase three hundred sq. miles of desert along the Med and build up a new large protected base of operations and pull out of any Arab country that does not openly work with us. Ya, now they can fear each other again. Go into Viet Nam and rebuild a new base of operations to protect our shipping. Rethink what the US has to do, demand the nations of the worlds spend for defense, have locations in case of the next war.
The Arabs are afraid of India and China, if we pull out I think we will see some very interesting years ahead.
photo
peterg76
Freelance medical transcriptionist
10:18 AM on 04/21/2010
The problem is that the US is an aggressive imperialist power, whereas the other members of NATO are only interested in defence.
10:38 AM on 04/21/2010
great summation peterg76 . . .
12:23 PM on 04/21/2010
One of my favourite quotes....from Willy Brandt to the US Govt of the time
. "Don't tell us about communism, we've lived with it on our doorstep for forty years"
11:15 AM on 04/21/2010
For the first time in 500 years no European country is a world power. The fact is, Europe is in decline and can’t defend its self without the US. America is not imperialistic; she only asks for enough foreign land to bury her dead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
harmlesstree
"We are a warlike people" George Carlin
12:18 PM on 04/21/2010
LOL! America is not imperialistic? Is this some sort of misguided attempt at humor? Bury her dead? What about all the dead, in the millions, that have needed to be buried because of her! That's the issue!

And, Europe can defend itself just fine! For the primary threat to European Nations was other European Nations. This threat has been removed.
03:34 PM on 04/21/2010
You are engaging in babbledogook.

"Europe is in decline"? Europe, through the "EU" is the largest economy, and the largest trading bloc on the planet (EU GNP of $16.5 trillion,vs. U.S..GNP of $14.2 trillion). If you have any residual doubts as to its strength, examine what the "Euro" has done in comparison to the U.S. dollar over the past five years.

"(Europe) can't defend its self (sic) without the U.S."? Europe is not at war with anyone (unless you consider the U.S.-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan), and Russia does not encroach on Europe nearly as much as the U.S. and NATO have on them since the break up of the Soviet Union.

"America is not imperialistic"? Only if you say so.

"S)he only asks for enough foreign land to bury her dead"? Sure, tell that to the people in Hawaii, U.S. Virgin Islands, U.S. Marshall Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giveadamn
Don't let them school you or even try to fool you.
09:37 AM on 04/21/2010
I'm not surprised that western Europe doesn't feel as guarded as eastern Europe. They didn't have to endure Stalin and forty years of Soviet communism. The soviet satellite countries have a good reason for concern, especially given the occasional bullying by Moscow! Between shutting down the pipelines of oil and gas, cyberattacks, and border crossings, there is no doubt that Russia is the big kid on the block, and will not tolerate criticism or dissent! Meanwhile Nato has been lost in the wilderness since the collapse of communism and must certainly redefine it's mission before it considers any new membership!
10:21 AM on 04/21/2010
NATO should be scrapped - there is no more cold war.
If there is to be another alliance then give it an appropriate name.
Allowing expansion into non NATO territory under the guise of this alliance is dishonest.
11:09 AM on 04/21/2010
There have always been 2 purposes for NATO, one being to deter and defend a Soviet attack. The other was to ensure the US and Britain that no hegemonic power would rise in Europe to threaten the world again. #2 is still a valid concern for the US and Britain because history has shown that Europe can move towards totalitarianism too quickly (Russia too).
10:30 AM on 04/21/2010
The European attitude toward Russia isn't all that different to their post-WW2 attitude towards Germany- after two world wars and German imperialism they too were widely suspicious, but the way to counter that historic animosity was through developing closer links. And that is exactly what the western Europeans are doing and, more and more, what the newer eastern European countries are seeing as the way forward.

The recent tragedy for the Poles has shown that the Russians can look to build bridges with their former satelites and all can benefit from their doing so. Has no one observed that the event involved was a memorial for the Katyn massacre in which thousands of polish PoWs were mercilessly executed by the Soviets)?

It seems that many in the USA, particularly on the right remain stuck in cold-war postures concerning Russia- regarding it as still a Soviet threat that has long since become less threatening to everyone.

Does anyone really believe that the USA would go to War for Georgia over a minor territorial dispute involving ethic Russians? While Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain may claim "We're all georgians now...." no one believes such idiocy, particularly the Europeans who've seen centuries of such minor border conflicts... Alsace-Lorraine? the Italian Tyrol? Greek/Turkish Cyprus, the Balkans (and indeed, even Italy and Germany which were fragmented states until the late 1800s) that list goes on and on...
09:24 AM on 04/21/2010
This is a beginning of a new era. And with that the alliance also has to move forward. Overhaul of the NATO charter is long overdue. In a way, the world is flat. Clinging on to 20th century ideals and beliefs is not going to benefit anyone. Even more less the founding member states of the NATO alliance.

Engaging China and India is a good move. The more systemic interaction, the less the chances of unnecessary conflicts with those nations. Today's economic realities call for alliances and diplomatic solutions to conflicts.

However, I do worry about the French leadership.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChuckWhite
09:00 AM on 04/21/2010
The U.S. wastes money on protecting Europe from foes that haven't existed for more than a decade. Worse, the Europe that NATO "protects" is more than capable of protecting itself.

Let's face it. Today's NATO is simply an out-dated forum for coordination and standards supporting a military alliance. Why don't we recognize it as such, disband it, and forge appropriate alliances to accomplish the real goals that are now cobbled together under the acronym "NATO".

For example, if NATO were disbanded, we could accomplish the same goals more efficiently by:
1) Signing a treaty to guarantee coordination of military training, technology and standards,
2) Formalize our commitment to mutual protection, but, only when necessary, not as an on-going active exercise,
3) Where necessary, commit to trade agreements which maintain our mutual interests,
4) Withdraw U.S. troops from Europe with the expectation that Europe is perfectly capable of protecting itself.

Now, really. Does that sound so hard? Wouldn't it benefit the U.S. to focus it's force to best advantage?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dimme
09:23 AM on 04/21/2010
You would go pale if you knew how much pressure is put on NATO allies to buy US defense contracts. The bullying Norway experienced from the former US ambassador caused the other major contractor to drop out -- they understood that as an ally of the US, our hands are forced on national security issues. I don't think the US is making out on this, but US defense contractors are having a ball with NATO customers. And that's whats been most important to US engagement abroad for a long time -- keep the military industrial complex happy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChuckWhite
10:14 AM on 04/21/2010
Oooops. I originally posted this in reply to the wrong comment. Here it is in reply to you:

I can only disagree with you on one point. I doubt I'd be surprised, much less pale, at the strong-arm tactics of U.S. military suppliers. On the contrary, I'm fairly well convinced that the current, sole purpose of NATO is as a market for U.S. products of war.

I'd contend that our national prestige would be better served by acting as a friendly competitor than as a conniving bully.
photo
Bushwhacked
REGISTER! VOTE! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!
01:49 PM on 04/21/2010
With you on this one too.
09:28 AM on 04/21/2010
Agree. NATO has been a US led operation for many years. Sure, the NATO nations play a part but the US has been doing all the heavy lifting. Most NATO nations are skinning down their forces to a skeleton. The few brave military services that provide personnel are generally looked down upon by their countrymen. It is not a noble profession. Every country, with the exception of Turkey, are cutting their military budgets. The Europeans are just too insular and erect too many subtle barriers to commerce as well. Starting with Pres. Clinton, the US has rightly engaged faster growth nations rather tangle with the fractious EU. The US political leadership should continue that policy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChuckWhite
10:12 AM on 04/21/2010
I can only disagree with you on one point. I doubt I'd be surprised, much less pale, at the strong-arm tactics of U.S. military suppliers. On the contrary, I'm fairly well convinced that the current, sole purpose of NATO is as a market for U.S. products of war.

I'd contend that our national prestige would be better served by acting as a friendly competitor than as a conniving bully.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChuckWhite
10:17 AM on 04/21/2010
Sorry ... I meant to post this in reply to the comment above yours.

As to your comment, I agree. Europe can afford to cut it's military costs. After all, the U.S. contributions to NATO pretty well cover their needs. Why would they spend money on defense if the U.S. will do it for them? No wonder the U.S. has the world's largest military budget.
08:47 AM on 04/21/2010
The 5 NATO countries that house 6 bases with nuclear weapons are:

BELGIUM, GERMANY, ITALY, NETHERLANDS & TURKEY.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dimme
08:44 AM on 04/21/2010
One of the key issues of the original NATO treaty was the presence in and defense of Iceland. The US is according to the treaty responsible for the defense of Iceland, but Bush closed the military base in Keflavik and pulled all personnel out of Iceland as he felt he needed the resources to fight insurgents in Iraq. So the terms of the treaty has not been fulfilled by the US since September 2006.
I fully understand US sentiments that Europe is responsible for its own defense. But the way Iceland was left defenseless in 2006 was harsh, cruel and in no small part also contributed to the economic meltdown of the Icelandic currency. Had the same effects on Icelandic society been caused by a non-ally, it would have been described as a hostile attack. It can be argued that in pulling out of Iceland, the US unilaterally pulled out of the NATO treaty. But nobody is saying that out loud, because that would raise the question of why and under what pretext US forces are still present in so many European countries and who actually controls the 200+ nuclear missiles the US has stockpiled in Europe under a NATO treaty it no longer feels obligated to honor.

It's another Bush-mess Obama have to clean up.
photo
Bushwhacked
REGISTER! VOTE! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!
01:49 PM on 04/21/2010
Thanks for the reminder. Needs more light on this.
08:44 AM on 04/21/2010
The NATO alliance has been so watered down that it now faces being drawn into another WAR of OLD USSR rivals. The expansion of NATO partners has been its downfall.

And, if Georgia is added to the mix a future WAR is all but certain.

As a citizen of a NATO partnered country, I cringe each time I see almost daily headlines: "NATO Bombs Civilians", "NATO Attacks a Bus", "NATO Friendly Fire Incident", "NATO Drones Mistakenly Attack a Wedding Party" etc. etc.

At best NATO alliance countries involvement in the WAR in Afghanistan has been TOKENISM.

Tokenism because the largest troop contingent in Afghanistan apart from the USA is Great Britain with 9,500 troops. And, the participating NATO countries contingents decline from there. Some NATO countries have committed troops but in non-combat roles only. After Great Britain, the NATO countries commitment to AFGHAN WAR drop in half with the following commitments:

1. U.K. 9,500
2. Germany 4,335
3. France 3,750
4. Italy 3,160
5. Canada 2,830
6. Poland 2,140
7. Netherlands 1,880
8. Turkey 1,835
9. Australia 1550 (non-NATO Alliance)
10. Spain 1550

The remaining troop commitments to the WAR in AFGHANISTAN come from 34 other countries with commitments under 1,000 and as low a 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force#Contributing_nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

... continued
08:45 AM on 04/21/2010
Continued ...

Some countries have taken the "brunt" of this conflict, particularly since the INVASION of IRAQ when the FOCUS changed from AFGHANISTAN to a new front in IRAQ and the AFGHANISTAN WAR became the FORGOTTEN WAR with absolutely NO strategic focus under the BUSH/CHENEY Administration.

Consequently, Canada & the Netherlands have committed to withdrawing their combat troops, the Netherlands in 2010 and the Canadians in 2011.

It is time for NATO to really examine its PURPOSE and STOP talking around the edges.
BritishColumbian
American/Canadian liberal
10:22 AM on 04/21/2010
Would make more sense to convert the nu mbers to per capita. For example Canada has one tenth the population of America.
10:38 AM on 04/21/2010
America certainly has deployed more than 10 times more than Canada. Canada has
3000, we have over 100000. More like 30 times over. Or 3 times more per capita.
England has the closest per capita ratio with US only providing twice as much. The
rest are just token deployments to make us feel as if we are being supported. And
many of them will not deploy on front lines, and are support troops only who have
never seen any action.
08:35 AM on 04/21/2010
NATO was invented to keep the Russinas out and the Germans down. Time to end it- let America go home.