A NEW NATO?

May 5, 1999
		The leaders of the 19 NATO nations gathered in Washington, DC to mark the alliance's 50th anniversary and discuss the the war in Kosovo. But even as the Alliance celebrated that milestone, some foreign policy experts wonder if NATO will survive to see another 50 years. Ivo Daalder, former director for European Affairs on the National Security Council staff, and Doug Bandow, former special assistant to President Reagan, answer your questions

Return to the NATO Forum Index Is NATO obsolete? Is NATO's future dependent on US policy? Can the new Alliance stay united? Will the war spell the end of NATO? Will NATO get involved in more internal matters like Chechnya?   NATO at 50 coverage Strikes in Yugoslavia Coverage NATO Documents: Strategic Concept The Alliance for the 21st Century The Washington Declaration Kosovo Communiqué       The Official NATO 50th Web Site NATO US State Department Serbian Ministry of Information	Clinton Petersen of Marquette, NE asks: It seems whether it is the United Nation's forces gathered together during Desert Storm or NATO forces marshaled during the Kosovo crisis, it is primarily the U.S. providing most, if not all of the men, machinery, and expertise. Is it fair to say that the future of either organization is entirely dependent upon US policy Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute responds: The UN will almost inevitably be dependent on the US, since it does not possess its own military. In practice, the UN operates as an international fig-leaf for the major powers. Both Korea and the Gulf War were essentially US military operations; the UN provided a patina of legitimacy, nothing more. Today NATO remains largely dependent on America. However, if Washington chose to stop subsidizing the defense of Europe, the Europeans are fully capable of developing an independent defense organization. The European Union states enjoy a combined GDP of $8 trillion, a population of 400 million (both larger than the US), and a military of one million. Unlike the UN, the EU could take over NATO or turn the Western European Union into a genuine independent military organization. Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution responds: Although it was not the United Nations that gathered in the Persian Gulf but rather a US-led ad-hoc coalition that enjoyed UN support, Clinton's point is well-made. In recent years, no significant multilateral military operation has occurred without an effective US lead. This reflects the fact that the United States is the unquestioned military superpower today. Even while defense spending has gone down in real terms since its peak in 1985, the US alone spends more on defense than the next 10 military powers combined. This means that the US has the technological edge -- as well as the overall resources -- necessary to conduct modern warfare, especially in ways that reduce casualties on all sides. As one example, while the European NATO allies spend about 2/3 as much as the US on defense, the US is responsible for over 80% of the aircraft participating in the current air campaign against Yugoslavia. There is little prospect of this changing anytime soon, not just because additional spending on defense by others is unlikely to occur but also because most countries face a yawning technological and operational gap between their military forces and those of the US.