Canada: Time for 'Frank Discussion' About NATO Future
James Joyner | February 17, 2009
Canadian defense minister Peter MacKay argues that NATO faces an existential crisis in Afghanistan and it's time for "a frank discussion" about the future of the alliance. Luke Baker reports for Reuters:
"We need to have a frank discussion about the future of NATO," MacKay told the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, while underlining that Canada, a founder member, remained committed to the organization. "The U.S. re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance," he said, suggesting some members saw it as a chance to sit back and say 'it's okay, the Americans will handle it'. As the United States says, its contribution is designed to reinforce, not to replace ... We all need to maintain our collective effort so that we maximize the official contribution from the United States," he said.
[...]
In the past, criticism like MacKay's has been a veiled reference to the need for Germany, France and other major NATO states to step up contributions, bringing them into line with those made by Britain, Italy, Canada and the United States. MacKay did not name names, however, merely saying that unless there was a more unified, coordinated response across the alliance, the 8-year operation in Afghanistan risked failure.
"Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context," he said. "If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"
That is indeed the question.
Aside from the fact that this is NATO's first significant out-of-area operation and that the alliance has therefore put its credibility on the line by undertaking the mission, though, I disagree with the consensus view — indeed, likely the consensus view of the Atlantic Council leadership — that "winning" in Afghanistan is a make-or-break matter.
Countries routinely go to war, fail to achieve the objectives they sought, and withdraw without permanent damage to their prestige. The United States, certainly, has done it more than once and appears set to do so again in Iraq. Why should alliances be any different? Clearly, most members of the alliance don't see failure in Afghanistan as an existential crisis to their own country's security; why, then, is it an existential crisis for the alliance?
It may well be that the answer to MacKay's question is something narrower than the mission undertaken in Afghanistan. Maybe NATO, as presently constituted, simply isn't the proper vehicle for sustained out-of-area operations. Beyond that, it's not clear at this juncture whether it's still mostly a military alliance at all; perhaps its major role is as a diplomatic venue or as a "club" to which emerging democracies can aspire.
Regardless, MacKay is absolutely right: It's long past time to have that discussion.
James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council. AP Photo by Christof Stache.
Comments
A quick skimming of the NATO Treaty suggests at least to me that NATO is, first and foremost, a military alliance. Its clubby or diplomatic aspects are, at least as set forth in the charter, subordinate to that role.
As skeptical as I am about the objectives of the mission in Afghanistan, I think that Iraq reveals that some number of our European allies are not prepared to be productive members of a military alliance and, possibly, are not interested in such. When NATO meant to them harnessing the United States as a barrier to Soviet aggression, that was well and good but a joint punitive expedition against a common enemy? Not so much.
Alliances are different than nations. Nations may have permanent interests. Alliances don't. IMO if the U. S. should remain in Afghanistan while the rest of the alliance withdraws or remains to hold our coat while we fight, NATO is kaput.
There was a decade between the collapse of the USSR and the Afghan invasion (and more, since the way the wind was blowing was clear for a decade before that) - during which NATO did just fine but travelled away from its central stated mission onto non-military paths. Still, clearly it was never *just* about the USSR and identifying with honesty what else NATO was good for but what wasn't explicitly stated may be worthwhile. I don't think deliberately looking for new Eastern members a cat's hair away from war with Russia and thus inevitably invoking the Charter was one of those, though. On that I fully agree with Malcolm Rifkin.
Regards, S
I think NATO hasn't clear idea for existance. Againt who this forces?
Why haven't you mentioned the concerns of the EU regarding energy access during Energy Wars ? Russia still has not been deprived of access - though Iranian oilfields are badly degraded from sanctions by the U.S. of oilfield equipment - which Europe wants for itself.
Supporting the US and UK in the Great Game against Russia to take its energy resources must not look very secure. At least Russia has not shown boundless enthusiasm for murdering in foreign wars far from home to deprive others of portable power. China has secured access to Afghanistan,Australia and Africa. Israel to Iran/Iraq is a ways off yet. Nor am I clear how that is an unmitigated blessing to a country which has offshored so much of its manufacturing base and spread poison and Monsanto far and wide.
How enthusiastic would you be in volunteering more than a show of obedience to the nuclear club ? Canada is a special case infiltrated and interconnected with the U.S. and U.K.
The rest ? Not so much.
Countries routinely go to war, fail to achieve the objectives they sought, and withdraw without permanent damage to their prestige. The United States, certainly, has done it more than once and appears set to do so again in Iraq. Why should alliances be any different? MonclerClearly, most members of the alliance don't see failure in Afghanistan as an existential crisis to their own country's security; why, then, is it an existential crisis for the alliance?
Thank you very much for the information provided! I was looking for this data for a long time, bit I was not able to find the trusted source
I liked the saying of yours about the NATO that
"If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?"
mens cashmere scarves
The United States, certainly, has done it more than once and appears set to do so again in Iraq. Why should alliances be any different? Clearly, most members of the alliance don't see failure in Afghanistan as an existential crisis to their own country's security
The U.S. re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance.
I have thought NATO do the right things in the right way because of NATO consist of the influence nation members that participate to make decision.
Post new comment