|
After the United States destroyed the Taliban terrorist havens in Afghanistan and drove their leaders into Pakistan, NATO agreed to play a far more important role in Afghanistan. But now over five years later, the Taliban is sharply expanding its support areas as well as its political and economic influence within that nation. If the Taliban are to be permanently defeated and Afghanistan given a clear chance to succeed as a modern nation state, NATO must expand its military support within that nation and Pakistan must support anti-terrorist activities as well. Is NATO willing to carry a larger portion of the burden within Afghanistan?
During the first week of April, NATO is holding its annual summit meeting in Bucharest and there is a real concern that Germany and other NATO countries will fail to carry a larger share of the burden within Afghanistan. As Robert Kaplan has summarized: “Critics complain that it has become an unequal, two-tiered alliance, with the troops of the United States, Britain, Canada, and Holland taking the combat role while Germany, Italy, Spain and other members take refuge in the safe areas, refusing to put their soldiers in danger.” Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO’s mandate has been a work in progress—from a sole focus on the defense of the European homeland to a three-dimensional engagement in global issues like terrorism, human rights abuses, military partnerships with fledgling democracies, energy security, nuclear proliferation and outbreaks of chaos.
As Kaplan has also observed, this change in focus has necessitated a shift in structure, toward mobile rapid-reaction forces as opposed to the normal, cumbersome infantry units. To date, NATO has not implemented this significant change. Therefore, the US and Britain must bear a heavier part of the burden. There is definitely a two-tiered structure to NATO. As NATO moves to the East, it continues to serve as a buffer zone against an expansive Russia under Putin. Countries that are close to Russia (e.g., Poland and Romania) feel a strong sense of protection being part of NATO. Perhaps that is the reason both nations have helped in Iraq and Afghanistan. “NATO membership represents a seal of good-product approval from former east bloc states seeking investment and stabilization.” For that reason, Georgia and Ukraine wish to join NATO. Kaplan writes: “A two-tiered NATO still keeps a retrograde Serbia in a box; this reduces Russian interference in the Balkans to the level of a significant irritant rather than a strategic threat. NATO membership sets parameters for Turkey’s democratic experiment with Islamic rule, making it more likely to succeed in ways that the West can tolerate. NATO’s Partnership for Peace program, in which second-tier members like Germany participate, gives former Soviet republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia access to NATO training programs, which helps keep them from slipping closer into the Kremlin’s orbit.” So, NATO is hardly a failure and still serves an important role, which supports and complements larger goals that the US is pursuing. It is certainly far more effective than anything the United Nations does!
There is little doubt that pacifism is growing in Europe, and this is affecting NATO’s military capabilities. Kaplan writes: “Embryonic European pacifism needs to be carefully managed, not just condemned. That is why we must push harder for the NATO Response Force. Europe’s aversion to conflict—and its tendency to reduce geopolitics to negotiations and regulatory disputes—has not prevented all 26 NATO members from taking part in some capacity in Afghanistan. Europe, merely because of its economic weight, is going to be a significant military power in the 21st century. Our goal should be for that military power to be expressed as much as possible through an American led alliance.” NATO remains a viable alliance that serves purposes very much in line with those of the US. But, as with all things, the world is rapidly changing and so is NATO. The growing reality of European pacifism is a hard reality the US must face. Many in Europe are simply reluctant to place their soldiers in harm’s way. That is the reality for many in Afghanistan. And they will never commit any troops to monitoring Iraq. The US will need to go it alone in Iraq and probably accept limited involvement from most of NATO in Afghanistan. But this growing pacifism does not make NATO irrelevant. It will remain a viable and vital alliance for the US. We will simply need to massage and manage our leadership better and more shrewdly. It continues to baffle me that Europe does not see its interests very much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq. For that reason, the US will need to be aggressive and focused on these nations and expect little or nothing from the growing pacifist tendencies of Europe.
See Robert Kaplan’s very helpful essay in the New York Times (27 March 2008). |
