|
Timothy
Fisher of Minneapolis, MN asks:
Recently I attended a Forum at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for
Public Affairs where Former Sen. Eugene McCarthy spoke some on the future
of NATO. He suggested that the organization be disbanned because it's
obsolete in an environment where there is no significant Soviet military
threat. Is this a precise description of the fate NATO should meet,
and why is the Yugoslavian conflict going to be the indicator of what
will become of NATO?
Ivo
Daalder of the Brookings Institution responds:
During the first 4 decades of NATO's existence, the organization was
a military alliance with a political foundation. It's overriding purpose
was to defend its members -- who were united not only be fear of communism
but also by a shared commitment to the values of democracy and free
enterprise -- against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union.
With the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the political core of NATO
is becoming more important -- and its priorities are being reversed.
IN the future, NATO is a political alliance with a military foundation.
The 16 -- now 19 -- members of NATO are united by a shared commitment
to promote democracy, advance human rights, and strengthen economic
prosperity of all. The central purpose of the Alliance is not only to
secure these values for themselves, but also to enhance the prospect
that other countries in the Euro-Atlantic area come to share them. Indeed,
NATO's overriding purpose today is to extend the security and stability
that its members have long enjoyed to other parts of the Euro-Atlantic
area. NATO's involvement in the former Yugoslavia is propelled by this
purpose -- in countering widespread human rights abuses and strengthening
the basis for building democracy and prosperous economies, NATO is actively
seeking to extend security into Europe's most unstable region.
Doug
Bandow of the Cato Institute responds:
NATO was created in a different time to meet a different threat. The
end of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Cold War suggest that it is
time to transform the alliance to meet new circumstances. Although Russia
could eventually revive, today Britain, France, and Germany together
spend more than Moscow on the military. Add Central and Eastern Europe
to the European Union countries and Russia faces an impossible task.
Thus, while it makes sense for the Europeans to cooperate to meet any
future threats that may arise, there is no reason for the U.S. to remain
a member or station military forces on the continent. We should move
to a NATO without the US, the Western European Union, or a similar European-dominated
defense organization.
NATO's attack on Yugoslavia represents a desperate attempt to find
a new mission for the alliance. The outcome of the conflict is likely
to determine whether NATO is able to mount additional "out of area"
operations. The prospect would not seem to be good. The alliance's hypocrisy
is grotesque: NATO member Turkey behaves more brutally towards the Kurds
than Serbia has towards the Albanians. If humanitarian intervention
becomes a NATO cause, it will be harder to ignore Turkey's depredations.
Moreover, maintaining the unity of 19 disparate countries in attempting
to settle a series of brutal civil wars would be far more difficult
than cooperating in the common defense.
|
