F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F O C U S O N N AT O A T 6 0 ANSWERING THE HARD QUESTIONS Jean Francois Podevin “ CBY JOSEPH R. WOOD NATO MUST RECOGNIZE THAT ITS CURRENT INTERNAL DIFFERENCES ARE REAL, AND THAT SURMOUNTING THEM WILL REQUIRE A SUSTAINED EFFORT. risis in Trans-Atlantic Relations” has always been good for a headline and a conference title, and “Whither NATO?” has been a popular question for the Alliance since its founding. Indeed, crisis and doubt have been the recurring features over NATO’s 60 years of existence. In the 1950s, the military structure of the Alliance developed through the years of the Korean War, the divisive Suez crisis and Sputnik; in the same decade, then-West Germany joined the Alliance. The 1960s saw continued tension over Berlin, changes in U.S. nu- 22 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 9
F O C U S clear doctrine that carried major implications for the allies, and the withdrawal of France from NATO’s military structure. The 1970s brought Germany’s Ostpolitik, an <strong>American</strong> internal loss of confidence after Vietnam, and the first decisions on the deployment of short- and mediumrange nuclear missiles that rocked Europe. The 1980s saw President Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech and his declaration of intent to eliminate nuclear weapons — both disconcerting for the Allies, who found them surprising and unnerving. And 1989 brought the fall of the Berlin Wall. What many considered NATO’s raison d’etre, and certainly the proximate cause of its existence, ended soon afterward with the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself. Yet NATO survived and responded to crises in Bosnia and Kosovo, even as it continued to agonize over its continued relevance during the 1990s. The beginning of the 21st century witnessed the 9/11 attacks and, in response, NATO’s first invocation of the Article 5 mutual defense clause. Sidelined in Afghanistan at the outset of that war, the Alliance is now trying to see a way forward there in difficult and, some would say, deteriorating circumstances. In this climate, it is worth recalling a passage from the 1967 Harmel Report, drafted mainly by representatives of some of NATO’s smaller members and undertaken in response to an existential crisis. That report concluded: “The Alliance is a dynamic and vigorous organization which is constantly adapting itself to changing conditions. It has also shown that its future tasks can be handled within the terms of the treaty by building on the methods and procedures which have proved their value Joseph R. Wood, a Senior Resident Fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, D.C., specializes in Europe, Eurasia and trans-Atlantic relations. From 2005 to 2008, he was deputy assistant to Vice President Richard Cheney for national security affairs, with responsibility for White House policy involving Europe, Eurasia and Africa. A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado, the French Joint Defense College in Paris and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Mr. Wood is a retired Air Force colonel. NATO has survived and responded to past crises, even as it continued to agonize over its continued relevance. over many years. Since the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, the international situation has changed significantly and the political tasks of the Alliance have assumed a new dimension. … Although the disparity between the power of the United States and that of Europe remains, Europe has recovered and is on its way toward unity.” Four decades later, that assessment could be put almost verbatim into a communiqué for this year’s anniversary summit in France and Germany. Despite persistent doubts about the organization’s viability, NATO’s successes are truly historic. Institutionally, it established and maintained reasonably robust procedures and standards for military planning and operations, despite barriers ranging from language differences to recent and longstanding animosities among its members. It also developed effective, if sometimes inefficient, means of political coordination on security matters. As for specific challenges, NATO can point to the successful defense and extension of freedom in Europe throughout and after the Cold War; the management of the security aspects of the Balkan Wars of the 1990s; and the enlargement of the Alliance in ways that preserved NATO’s functions while encouraging reform in new members. That said, NATO does face some real difficulties that differ qualitatively, and perhaps decisively, from its earlier anxieties. The Challenges of Afghanistan It is common to hear that NATO “cannot fail in Afghanistan,” because to do so would spell the end of the Alliance. If true, the allies have set for themselves daunting strategic and tactical goals on which to stake their collective future. Military victory in Afghanistan has proven an impossible task for foreign powers ranging from the British Empire to the Soviet Union. Both London and Moscow were willing to use harsh measures in pursuit of objectives less ambitious than what NATO is striving to achieve: safeguarding some form of representative government that rules centrally from Kabul. Yet both powers were eventually driven out of Afghanistan, and were weakened by their failures there. A P R I L 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 23
Page 1: PLANNING FOR RETIREMENT ■ COMING
Page 6 and 7: F OREIGN J O U R N A L SERVICE Edit
Page 8 and 9: LETTERS Progress on Contact Reporti
Page 10 and 11: L E T T E R S gressional authority
Page 12 and 13: CYBERNOTES New Focus on Public Dipl
Page 14 and 15: C Y B E R N O T E S This is not ju
Page 16 and 17: S P E A K I N G O U T guage-design
Page 18 and 19: F O C U S and its continued influen
Page 20 and 21: F O C U S Lisbon Treaty remains unr
Page 22 and 23: F O C U S Many Americans might reca
Page 26 and 27: F O C U S NATO’s International Se
Page 28 and 29: F O C U S bership. But none of the
Page 30 and 31: F O C U S O N N AT O A T 6 0 THE RU
Page 32 and 33: F O C U S “transformation agenda
Page 34 and 35: F O C U S 2003 Iraq War, and would
Page 36 and 37: They may also not expect changes in
Page 38 and 39: who are younger, married for shorte
Page 41 and 42: AFSANEWS American Foreign Service A
Page 43 and 44: V.P. VOICE: STATE ■ BY STEVE KASH
Page 45 and 46: ing restrictions on rehiring annuit
Page 47 and 48: FS VOICE: FAMILY MEMBER MATTERS ■
Page 49 and 50: 2009 Foreign Service Youth Contests
Page 51 and 52: CLASSIFIEDS A F S A N E W S LEGAL S
Page 53 and 54: BOOKS The Importance of Religious F
Page 55: B O O K S nates, though several le
Page 58 and 59: I N M E M O R Y ernment and the Ja
Page 60 and 61: I N M E M O R Y mation Agency in 1
Page 62 and 63: I N M E M O R Y the Food and Drug
Page 64 and 65: I N M E M O R Y of adventure, her
Page 66 and 67: u COORDINATE MAINTENANCE u OVER 24
Page 68 and 69: REAL ESTATE ADVERTISING INDEX When
Page 70: REFLECTIONS Recalling Lockerbie BY

F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?