As NATO begins its fifth decade, an increasing number of observers are asking if, in a new era of superpower cooperation, it is still needed or even relevant. Whether the cooperation is permanent or temporary, they argue, the old "imminent invasion" rationale for NATO no longer obtains, particularly in the wake of the U.S.-Soviet agreement limiting intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF).
Supporters of NATO respond that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Despite the very real differences between Washington and European capitals on the issue and degree of burden sharing, the key role of U.S. forces in the defense of Europe if it is attacked is not seriously questioned by any NATO member. Nor is there disagreement about the demonstrated ability of NATO over the last 40 years to deter war. There is serious debate, however, as to whether the primary approach to deterrence in the years to come should be military or political/ diplomatic, with West Germany stressing the need to reduce tensions with the Warsaw Pact.
Fred C. Ikle, who co-chaired the bipartisan Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, suggests that a major East-West crisis "is rather unlikely in the near term." But even in the absence of an immediate threat, he warns, it would be a mistake not to continue arms modernization and controls on the transfer of strategic technology to the East. NATO, he says, will have to "adjust its nuclear strategy so as to bring it more into harmony with the changed nuclear balance and with arms control developments." In addition to its military defenses, says Ikle, the alliance also wields a political "sword": "the humanistic, democratic tradition of the Atlantic community."
However, the sense of common purpose that Ikle describes can no longer be taken for granted, argues Britain's Christopher Coker. The "successor generation" in Europe "lacks the sense of purpose and certainty that sustained Europe's leaders even during NATO's worst crises," and faith in the United States is considerably diminished. At the same time, public confidence in the Soviet Union is rising in Europe. In this atmosphere, Coker says, the alliance "will have to evolve" from a cohesive, value-based institution into an organization in which the interests of its members will be more narrowly defined.
Is the military threat to NATO actually declining? To Gen. William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, " the big news is the answer might by yes, considering that the answer has been consistently no over the past four decades." NATO faces quite different trends in the Soviet bloc than on the eve of its four previous decades, Odom concedes, but that does not signal an end to the alliance's utility. "Rather it suggests that the challenge is changing and the uncertainties are greater." Prudence, he argues, requires greater efforts to strengthen NATO politically and to maintain adequate military capabilities.
As for the future U.S. role in defending Europe, Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos and Republican Sen. Rudy Boschwitz both agree that the U.S. commitment is strong but that America's allies must do more. Japan, too, Lantos maintains, must be integrated into joint defense planning. NATO must also respond positively, Lantos asserts, to the Soviets' desire to reduce weapons and prevent confrontation.
Boschwitz, noting that
...
Read Full Article
|
