NATO in the New World Order
***
The aim of this article is to analyze the current role of NATO from the perspective of citizens and taxpayers of world democracies.
Most politicians, academics and laymen would agree that NATO has been a great success. NATO countries stood firm against the expansionist threat from communism for several decades and won the cold war in the end without major hostilities. Five decades of partnership within NATO has created a historically unparalelled sense of solidarity between a diverse set of countries.
With the cold war over, discussions over the future of NATO have proliferated. The NATO conference in Istanbul in June 2004 was promoted as a forum where NATO leaders would discuss the ideas on what NATO could do next - against the appropriate background of Istanbul, the bridge between continents. Unfortunately, the agreement reached in Istanbul was far from satisfactory. If we carefully read through the 46 articles of the closing communique of the Istanbul summit, we can see that NATO leaders have resolved to:
1. Provide insignificant assistance to US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Celebrate the accession of several small Eastern European countries with no military capabilities to NATO, and commit to admit even more of them
3. Assign no concrete role to NATO on terrorism and WMD proliferation
Any honest individual with a minimal grasp of politics would grant that these resolutions are not covering much distance in addressing major security issues of the Western world. It seems, therefore, that the debate on what NATO should be doing next will have to start among individual thinkers before the leadership of NATO countries and the NATO bureaucracy is mobilised.
NATO is currently the only well organised international institution able to play a meaningful role in world security. UN has been a success in human development and social issues, but a complete failure in security matters. EU proves that it takes a very long time for united foreign policy and military capability to be created even in a region where economic and legal integration is very old and advance. Hence, as citizens and taxpayers of world democracies, we have a right to demand more from NATO.
In assessing the mission of NATO in the near future, we need to consider the major political realites of the present day in the areas of geopolitics and security. Two important facts define the post Cold War situation:
The major threat facing democracies is terrorism (including terrorists acquiring WMDs)
The current political alignment in the world does not mirror geopolitical and economic reality; hence it has to change
Terrorism having replaced potential military conflict with another well defined and competitive political regime as the major security threat for democracies obviously requires a significant shift in security analysis. The fact that NATO was created for a very different purpose in 1946 should not deter us from expecting NATO to play a major role in the fight against terrorism. NATO is the forum where the most experienced and talented security experts of Western democracies have been getting together over five decades to devise solutions to major security threats of the day. There is no better place to start than NATO for the fight against terrorism.
On the other hand we need to recognize that a stable and functional international political system is required to accomodate the new geopolitical and economic reality. The US is the only western power able to and interested in taking an active role in world security. Europe, due to its demographics, is keen to just keep out of trouble. China and India are rising industrial powers which are likely to increase their weight in political affairs. Most commodities are in the hands of less developed countries in the former Soviet Union, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Most of Africa is decimated by poverty, political instability and AIDS. Most of the Islamic world suffers from a deficit of political liberty and institutionalisation, keeping especially Arab countries at living standards far below their per capita incomes would suggest.
What kind of security structure can be both internally cohesive and externally functional? Most likely, there needs to be two sets of members. An inner core would consist of democracies with universal human rights standards and free markets coordinating their foreign policies and military capabilities to counter security threats and to promote mutually agreed values. This grouping would naturally be led by the United States. Around the inner core, there would be an outer core of major world powers to ensure stability in all regions and to coordinate the fight against terrorism.
NATO is well suited to be the inner core. The United States would be the leading power in NATO, as before. The European Union could join as one entity rather than individual countries, if it chooses. A united EU in NATO would make the functioning of NATO simpler and ensure that Europe is a serious complement as well as an effective counterweight to the US. All stable democracies around the world should be invited to the new NATO – Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and Mexico, Turkey and Balkan countries (if they are not already in the EU), Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, India, South Korea, Thailand and Malaysia would be natural members. Israel and Palestine should be invited when they manage to agree on a stable two-state solution to their conflict.
NATO could expand the “Partnership for Peace” program to become an effective world body to ensure stabilty in all regions and coordinate the fight against terrorism. Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and China would be the most obvious partners to start with. Iran should be invited if it chooses to join the struggle against terrorism. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan could be invited as they stabilise and develop their self rule. Any country in the partnership which establishes a stable track record as a democracy would be invited to join NATO.
Once a simple and functional body of world nations to work on security issues exists, we can hope to accelerate progress. The key priorities for all countries taking terrorism seriously should be to reduce the appeal of terrorists on young people of developing countries on one hand, and cut the terrorists’ access to resources on the other. A lot can be accomplished by three very simple measures:
Developed countries completely stopping arms exports (if the world has decided that cutting supply is key in the fight against drugs, we should be honest and do the same on the security front – major exporters US, Russia and France would need to take the lead)
Global free trade to be established in agriculture and textiles immediately. Getting the world’s poor the benefits of free trade is more important than subsidizing rich farmers of developed countries. Rather than subsidizing rich farmers around the world and spending money on expensive anti-terrorist measures at the same time, we could cut the first and reduce the second, saving very large sums at once
Investing in alternative energy to reduce dependence on oil. Higher oil prices means transfers from democracies and poorest countries to the Middle East and former Soviet Union. On one hand, this flow feeds opressive regimes in countries where terrorists do most of their recruiting. On the other hand, some of this money inevitably finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The less the world depends on oil, the easier will be the fight against terrorism.
The political structures focused on world security clearly need to change to respond to changes in the environment. NATO is the strongest tool we currently have. Therefore, it is natural from the prespective of citizens and taxpayers of world democracies to expect more from NATO. Leaders of NATO countries and NATO bureaucracts should make it a priority to adapt NATO to the new environment so that it can play the best possible role. Otherwise, we will all suffer.
***
The aim of this article is to analyze the current role of NATO from the perspective of citizens and taxpayers of world democracies.
Most politicians, academics and laymen would agree that NATO has been a great success. NATO countries stood firm against the expansionist threat from communism for several decades and won the cold war in the end without major hostilities. Five decades of partnership within NATO has created a historically unparalelled sense of solidarity between a diverse set of countries.
With the cold war over, discussions over the future of NATO have proliferated. The NATO conference in Istanbul in June 2004 was promoted as a forum where NATO leaders would discuss the ideas on what NATO could do next - against the appropriate background of Istanbul, the bridge between continents. Unfortunately, the agreement reached in Istanbul was far from satisfactory. If we carefully read through the 46 articles of the closing communique of the Istanbul summit, we can see that NATO leaders have resolved to:
1. Provide insignificant assistance to US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Celebrate the accession of several small Eastern European countries with no military capabilities to NATO, and commit to admit even more of them
3. Assign no concrete role to NATO on terrorism and WMD proliferation
Any honest individual with a minimal grasp of politics would grant that these resolutions are not covering much distance in addressing major security issues of the Western world. It seems, therefore, that the debate on what NATO should be doing next will have to start among individual thinkers before the leadership of NATO countries and the NATO bureaucracy is mobilised.
NATO is currently the only well organised international institution able to play a meaningful role in world security. UN has been a success in human development and social issues, but a complete failure in security matters. EU proves that it takes a very long time for united foreign policy and military capability to be created even in a region where economic and legal integration is very old and advance. Hence, as citizens and taxpayers of world democracies, we have a right to demand more from NATO.
In assessing the mission of NATO in the near future, we need to consider the major political realites of the present day in the areas of geopolitics and security. Two important facts define the post Cold War situation:
The major threat facing democracies is terrorism (including terrorists acquiring WMDs)
The current political alignment in the world does not mirror geopolitical and economic reality; hence it has to change
Terrorism having replaced potential military conflict with another well defined and competitive political regime as the major security threat for democracies obviously requires a significant shift in security analysis. The fact that NATO was created for a very different purpose in 1946 should not deter us from expecting NATO to play a major role in the fight against terrorism. NATO is the forum where the most experienced and talented security experts of Western democracies have been getting together over five decades to devise solutions to major security threats of the day. There is no better place to start than NATO for the fight against terrorism.
On the other hand we need to recognize that a stable and functional international political system is required to accomodate the new geopolitical and economic reality. The US is the only western power able to and interested in taking an active role in world security. Europe, due to its demographics, is keen to just keep out of trouble. China and India are rising industrial powers which are likely to increase their weight in political affairs. Most commodities are in the hands of less developed countries in the former Soviet Union, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America. Most of Africa is decimated by poverty, political instability and AIDS. Most of the Islamic world suffers from a deficit of political liberty and institutionalisation, keeping especially Arab countries at living standards far below their per capita incomes would suggest.
What kind of security structure can be both internally cohesive and externally functional? Most likely, there needs to be two sets of members. An inner core would consist of democracies with universal human rights standards and free markets coordinating their foreign policies and military capabilities to counter security threats and to promote mutually agreed values. This grouping would naturally be led by the United States. Around the inner core, there would be an outer core of major world powers to ensure stability in all regions and to coordinate the fight against terrorism.
NATO is well suited to be the inner core. The United States would be the leading power in NATO, as before. The European Union could join as one entity rather than individual countries, if it chooses. A united EU in NATO would make the functioning of NATO simpler and ensure that Europe is a serious complement as well as an effective counterweight to the US. All stable democracies around the world should be invited to the new NATO – Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and Mexico, Turkey and Balkan countries (if they are not already in the EU), Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, India, South Korea, Thailand and Malaysia would be natural members. Israel and Palestine should be invited when they manage to agree on a stable two-state solution to their conflict.
NATO could expand the “Partnership for Peace” program to become an effective world body to ensure stabilty in all regions and coordinate the fight against terrorism. Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and China would be the most obvious partners to start with. Iran should be invited if it chooses to join the struggle against terrorism. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan could be invited as they stabilise and develop their self rule. Any country in the partnership which establishes a stable track record as a democracy would be invited to join NATO.
Once a simple and functional body of world nations to work on security issues exists, we can hope to accelerate progress. The key priorities for all countries taking terrorism seriously should be to reduce the appeal of terrorists on young people of developing countries on one hand, and cut the terrorists’ access to resources on the other. A lot can be accomplished by three very simple measures:
Developed countries completely stopping arms exports (if the world has decided that cutting supply is key in the fight against drugs, we should be honest and do the same on the security front – major exporters US, Russia and France would need to take the lead)
Global free trade to be established in agriculture and textiles immediately. Getting the world’s poor the benefits of free trade is more important than subsidizing rich farmers of developed countries. Rather than subsidizing rich farmers around the world and spending money on expensive anti-terrorist measures at the same time, we could cut the first and reduce the second, saving very large sums at once
Investing in alternative energy to reduce dependence on oil. Higher oil prices means transfers from democracies and poorest countries to the Middle East and former Soviet Union. On one hand, this flow feeds opressive regimes in countries where terrorists do most of their recruiting. On the other hand, some of this money inevitably finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The less the world depends on oil, the easier will be the fight against terrorism.
The political structures focused on world security clearly need to change to respond to changes in the environment. NATO is the strongest tool we currently have. Therefore, it is natural from the prespective of citizens and taxpayers of world democracies to expect more from NATO. Leaders of NATO countries and NATO bureaucracts should make it a priority to adapt NATO to the new environment so that it can play the best possible role. Otherwise, we will all suffer.
posted by Ümit Kumcuoğlu at 1:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home