NATO’s Difficulties

At the upcoming conference in Lisbon, NATO will discuss the new strategic concept, the Afghan War, plans for missile defense and NATO’s restructuring … all high-priority issues to be discussed.

Analysts believe these issues are crucial for NATO and will affect its direction over the next 10 years. The fundamental issue is: Under limited resources, for what purpose ought NATO exist?

In light of these problems, there is no common agreement among NATO members. Countries led by the U.S. plan to continue cross-regional collaboration to complete missions, while responding to non-conventional threats such as terrorism and cyber attacks. On the other hand, France and Germany propose to collaborate with Russia and consult with organizations like the U.N. to ensure Europe’s security. In addition, they propose restructuring to streamline the organization to make it more efficient. The new Eastern European members, however, see the “reformed” Russia as a potential threat and assert Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty — “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” — to take precautions against Russia.

The mechanism for NATO’s policy decision is that member countries must all agree on a policy for it to become effective. Steven Pifer, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Xinhua reporters that incongruous views in NATO will result in a compromise in the new “strategic concept.”

NATO greatly expanded after the Cold War, but unity continued to decline, especially from the strain of the global financial crises. NATO’s defense budget faces challenges as members reduce military spending.

Even during the climax of the Afghan War in the past five years, NATO’s defense budget continued to decline. Among the 28 member countries, only five met NATO’s budget requirement. Recently, European allies reduced their budget once more, causing worries for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has also warned against the reduced spending.

Analysts believe that reduced spending is of second importance to NATO’s survival. Justin Vaïsse, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in an interview with Xinhua reporters: “The new cuts are gonna put in doubt the interoperability of the allies.”

Another issue NATO faces is how the U.S. handles the relationship with NATO. While the European members continue to reduce their defense spending, the U.S. — as the head of NATO — seeks to increase military power; this was especially true during the ‘80s and ‘90s in the last century. Moreover, the U.S. initiated war against Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. During the early stages of the war, although a few allies participated, the majority of forces were from the U.S. Several analysts indicated that the U.S. has lost interest in NATO after the Cold War.

Currently, the Afghan War is NATO’s most practical difficulty. Outside the NATO regions, this military operation is the largest in scale and the longest in time, with 48 countries and approximately 150,000 troops participating. Recently, the Taliban militants started a new round of attacks, both militarily and in propaganda. It is uncertain how NATO can step out of the quagmire in Afghanistan with declining support from the citizens of the Allies.

[Regarding NATO], Vaïsse said, “Afghanistan has severely reduced their appetite for doing out-of-area missions.” This war will very likely determine NATO’s role in future expeditions.

Founded 60 years ago, NATO’s strategic position and priorities will affect its global status in the changing world for the next 10 years.