BASIC NOTES

19 November 2001

The ‘Old Cold War Dog’ and the War Against Terrorism:  Continuing NATO’s Shift Toward Collective Security?

By Christina Torsein and Ian Davis
BASIC

During his October 2001 visit to Washington, D.C., Secretary General Lord Robertson of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remarked, "The old Cold War dog responded almost instantaneously to the terrorist assault."  On the other hand, he stressed NATO's new emphasis on non-military tasks, stating, "That old dog is a very different animal today. ... A lot more of its work is political.  The network of influence and institutions that has grown-up around NATO ... is vital to global stability."¹  What has NATO's support for the United States meant in practice?  And why then the reluctance of the U.S. government to unleash the old Cold War dog in the war against terrorism? 

NATO's Invocation of Article 5
In the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, NATO² signaled one of the strongest shows of support for President Bush and the U.S. administration.  On September 12, Lord Robertson stated that if the attacks on the United States came from abroad, NATO would invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.  Article 5 stipulates that an armed attack against one or more members of NATO shall be considered an attack against them all:

and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.³

After seeing evidence that the attacks came from abroad, NATO officially invoked Article 5 on October 2.⁴  This was the first time in NATO's 52-year history that it has invoked the article.  The invocation of Article 5 has been more symbolic than military, but depending on the length of the U.S. military campaign, this may change.  To be clear, Member States are not required to assist militarily or otherwise.  The fact that NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, however, shows the outrage and unity of the alliance in the wake of the attacks^.5

United States Gives Mixed Response to NATO Offers of Military Help
NATO has already provided some limited military assistance.  At the request of the United States, NATO deployed five Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft (AWACS) to monitor America's skies.  The alliance also is deploying its Standing Naval Force Mediterranean (STANAVFORMED) to the Eastern Mediterranean.  In addition, NATO has sent the Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT) to the Eastern Mediterranean where it already has stationed other forces in case they are requested in support of Article 5 operations.  

Individual member countries also have been forthcoming with military assistance.  The most notable of these is the United Kingdom, which has taken on the most prominent ground role aside from the U.S.-dominated combat operations in Afghanistan.⁶  Forces offered by other member countries (and from countries outside of the alliance) have to date largely been sidelined by the U.S. administration.  Turkey has offered to send 'special forces' to Afghanistan to support the Northern Alliance and to help secure humanitarian aid,⁷ and a number of countries have provided air transit, landing rights, or have shared information with the United States.  Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain all have pledged military support.⁸  Germany, for example, despite its restrictive anti-war constitution and a deeply skeptical public, has pledged 3,900 troops.  France, with a large Muslim minority and a traditional pro-Arab policy, has already provided intelligence support, including the deployment of 2,000 troops in surveillance operations. 

The cooperation of these NATO countries, for the most part, reflects the independent actions of the respective national governments in a show of solidarity with the United States, rather than any orchestrated campaign through the alliance's auspices.  However, speculation began to grow towards the end of October and early November that the European members of the alliance were becoming increasingly nonplussed with the United States' failure to call upon them to do more.⁹  The U.S. administration's independent policy is a reflection of differences of opinion within Washington as to how the Afghan campaign should be managed.  Some officials, most notably those within the Pentagon, have been reluctant to allow NATO allies to be involved in approving bombing targets (as was the case in the 1999 Kosovo conflict).  Officials in the State Department, however, have argued for a more inclusive military campaign - if only to retain the support of European public opinion.  

So far, the broad international coalition formed to combat terrorism has directed most of its practical support toward financial and diplomatic initiatives.  Although European allies want to extend this support to military combat operations, it seems likely that their military contribution would be used, if at all, for any subsequent peacekeeping efforts once the Taliban government has been overthrown.   

Engaging the European Pillar of NATO in the War Against Terrorism
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has continued to look for new roles and has found outlets in Balkans peacekeeping missions and diplomatic endeavors through NATO expansion.  Many European NATO officials have been pressing the United States to refrain from adopting a more unilateralist world-view since the election of the Bush administration.  With the tragic events of September 11, Lord Robertson has been keen to stress NATO's support of the United States in an effort to highlight the value of the alliance to its members.  Emphasizing the commitment of NATO to work with Washington to combat terrorism, Robertson recently commented on the "future of the transatlantic link" between the United States and Europe, "As much as we have been shocked by what happened, we have to rise to the challenge of fighting back and defeating terrorism.  Our enemies are not giants.  And our countries have the will and the ability to shape events."¹⁰  

Although Lord Robertson emphatically argues that NATO has a vital role to play in the ensuing months, he recognizes that in some instances other international organizations have a more appropriate role to play.  Robertson has noted, "NATO may not be the lead organization in combating global terrorism.  But we have not yet exhausted the potential for cooperation with our Partners against this menace.  The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) has much to offer in this respect.  The EAPC might focus more specifically on issues that relate to combating terrorism."¹¹ 

Ultimately, NATO's most critical role may be to serve as a bridge between European multilateralism and U.S. unilateralism.  Going beyond arguments about military capabilities and political symbolism, Lord Robertson has stressed the importance of long-term international goals that would help prevent terrorism, including the advancement of international law and moving the NATO-Russia relationship forward.  Moreover, Robertson argues that non-proliferation and missile defense issues should not fade in light of the events of September 11.  He adds that NATO needs to develop a holistic approach to internal and external security and to develop dialogue between military and security/law enforcement agencies.  Robertson argues, "NATO, the EU [the European Union], the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], the United Nations, and the major international financial institutions need to cooperate far more closely than ever before in tackling transnational security challenges, and in promoting cooperative approaches to building security."¹²

The attacks on the United States have affected global security, not just the United States' homeland and foreign policy.  Under these circumstances, therefore, NATO's swift response to stand by the United States is not surprising.  Moreover, the invocation of Article 5 certainly sets a new precedent for transatlantic cooperation.  Rather than contributing to U.S. military objectives in Afghanistan, however, in the coming months NATO is likely to prove more valuable to the United States in terms of consolidating political support among the European members of the "coalition against terrorism."  The alliance also could provide peacekeeping and logistics should they be required in any future U.N.-administered peace-settlement in Afghanistan.  This measured approach by NATO is in keeping with its recent (but still partial) transformation from a hard-nosed military alliance to an organization that is becoming primarily concerned with promoting collective security.  It also goes to show that it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks.

___________________

Endnotes

1 Quoted by Jim Hoagland, "Our Underutilized Allies," The Washington Post, October 12, 2001. 

2  NATO currently comprises 19 countries: Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States.

3 "What is Article 5?" NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, n.d.

4 Frank Taylor, the U.S. Ambassador at Large and Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2 on the results of the investigations into the September 11 attacks on the United States.  It was felt the information he provided to the Council clearly determined that those involved in the attacks belonged to the Al-Qaida network headed by Osama bin Laden, who allegedly is harbored by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

5 In 1991, fearing possible retaliation from Iraq, Turkey sought to invoke Article 5 preventatively when the country agreed to lend its bases for U.S. air strikes during the Gulf War.  NATO rejected this request for fear of setting a precedent on the use of Article 5.  See Natalie Bormann and Sharon Riggle, "NATO and Article V: Where to From Here?" Center for European Security and Disarmament Briefing Paper, September 26, 2001

6 See Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael White, "Marines and SAS to Stage Raids Inside Afghanistan," Guardian Unlimited, October 27, 2001

7 Turkey has a unique role to play because it is the only NATO member with a majority of its population belonging to the Islamic faith ("Turkey to Join War on Terror," BBC News, November 1, 2001

8 "The United States and the Global Coalition Against Terrorism, September-October 2001 - A Chronology," Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, D.C., October 31, 2001; Elizabeth Williamson, "NATO's New Members Support U.S. Aims With Poland Likely to Send Military Units," Wall Street Journal, November 5, 2001; Steve Erlanger, "Germany Offers Troops to Help U.S.," International Herald Tribune,  November 7, 2001.

9 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, "EU Leaders Demand a Place in the Front Line," Daily Telegragh, November 7, 2001; "Our Underutilized Allies," op. cit.

10 "The Future of the Transatlantic Link," speech by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, Lisbon, Portugal, October 24, 2001

11 "The Future of the Transatlantic Link," op. cit.  EAPC comprises the nineteen NATO countries and twenty- seven partner countries, including all the former Warsaw Pact countries.  EAPC is a multilateral forum where NATO members and partner countries meet on a regular basis to discuss political and security-related issues and develop cooperation in a wide range of areas. 

12  "The Future of Partnership," speech by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, EAPC Conference: 10 years of Partnership and Cooperation, Brussels, Belgium, October 26, 200

For further information, please contact:
Christine Torsein at ctorsein@basicint.org or 
Ian Davis at idavis@basicint.org

Back to European Security publications