Transatlantic Security
Back to the main
page on Transatlantic Security
NATO
NATO E-MAIL SERIES
Spring 2003
A Tumultuous Time Since the Last Soiree
Introduction to BASIC's Spring 2003 NATO E-mail
Series
June 2, 2003
Since the jubilant Prague Summit last Fall when seven Eastern
European countries were invited to join NATO, the mood of
the alliance has become one of increasing frustration. Leaders
will sense this mood during the Foreign Ministers meeting
in Madrid (June 3-4) and the Defense Ministers meeting in
Brussels (June 12-13).
Other than the United Nations, no international institution
suffered more than NATO during the debates over U.S. policy
toward Iraq. French and German leaders, knowing that they
reflected the views of publics across Western Europe, held
steadfast to their opposition to a U.S.-led war. Pressure
within NATO reached a climax when Turkey requested Article
4 assistance in case of an attack on its territory from Iraq.
France, Germany and Belgium all initially blocked an agreement
to fulfill the request, an agreement that normally would come
automatically. The alliance had to take the decision into
the Defense Planning Committee, which does not include France,
to arrive at a decision to offer protection to Turkey.
These tensions continued to manifest themselves over the
following months. During a meeting in late April, four countries
that are members of both NATO and the EU: France, Germany,
Luxembourg, and Belgium, announced a series of steps for Europe
to boost its own defense and security policies. The plans
included establishing an independent defense-planning center
just outside Brussels, where NATO's headquarters lie currently.
The rhetoric espoused at the meeting revived fears among those
who believe that the EU's emerging security and defense policy
will needlessly duplicate NATO assets.
The divide has become more acute than anticipated. U.S. leaders
have been crafting their policy of preventive war despite
suspicion among many European allies. If current policy trends
continue, nuclear weapons may well enter the equation of future
preventive wars. Because the United States has traditionally
guided NATO nuclear policy, a true debate on this issue within
the alliance lurks, albeit in the shadows.
Despite the foreboding of future problems, NATO has moved
on in more quiet ways, particularly in the peacekeeping realm.
NATO handed over its former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[1]
peacekeeping operation to the EU in March. NATO will take
over the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan in August and the alliance has also been planning
assistance for a Polish-led peacekeeping force in Iraq.
Whereas alliance leaders are finding much to disagree about,
they also realize that the alliance has much to do, even for
an organization that was created for a different security
environment. The difficulties of the alliance's adjustments
will be covered in three articles in this e-mail series during
the next two weeks. Topics will include NATO's nuclear policy,
the view of the alliance from Washington, and NATO's relations
with the EU.
[1] Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia with
its constitutional name.
If you would like to find out more about the series, or
to subscribe, please contact:
Chris Lindborg, clindborg@basicint.org, 1 202 347-8340, x102.
Back to Trans-atlantic
Security Home Page
|
