F OCUS - American Foreign Service Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F O C U S bership. But none of the countries admitted during the post–Cold War enlargement of NATO were ready for the responsibilities of membership when they entered the MAP process. Indeed, MAP presumes that the candidate has work to do. Moreover, as the candidate nation takes on that work, it does not participate in the Article 5 commitment to mutual defense. There was thus no possibility that a different decision a year ago would have obliged Germany or any other ally to defend a country that was not ready to be a member, militarily or politically. The real concern for Germany and France seems to have been Russian objections to even the possibility that Georgia and Ukraine might eventually become NATO members. Indeed, Amb. Ischinger himself noted, again in February, that “We have promoted NATO enlargement in a one-sided fashion and have tolerated the erosion of our relationship with Russia.” In line with such an approach, Chancellor Merkel declined a direct request by President George W. Bush to extend MAP to Ukraine and Georgia, a historic rejection of <strong>American</strong> leadership on a key issue. And in advocating closer attention to Russia, Amb. Ischinger and those who share his view seem more interested in taking a pragmatic approach to national interests than in upholding the “Enlightenment values” they cite regarding Guantanamo. In April 2008, the Allies agreed that Ukraine and Georgia will at some point become members. Purposes and Beliefs This division about basic values and interests, and the relationship between the two, reflects serious differences within the Alliance. The United States and most of the allies, especially the newer members in Central Europe, believe that the extension of NATO’s defensive alliance is not complete and that continued enlargement is not in conflict with Russia’s legitimate security interests. But Germany and France (and Russia) have a different vision of the future geography of European security. This fundamental dichotomy will sharpen divergences in the willingness to take risks, raising questions about which responsibilities are shared, and which are not, within an alliance built on common values and a willingness to take on dangers and burdens for a larger cause. For perhaps the first time in NATO’s history, then, we may need to ask what happens to a military or security organization when fundamental purposes diverge. For the cases of Afghanistan and enlargement raise questions not of means to ends, but of the ends themselves. And beyond the issue of ends and purposes in Europe, broader global issues will pose a challenge for NATO in practical terms. Even in the post–Cold War era, when the attention of U.S. policymakers has often turned in other directions, Europe’s fundamental importance has remained sufficiently clear and strong to ensure the mutual and continued core relevance of each side of the Atlantic to the other. That situation may be changing. Many commentators have noted the extraordinary array of challenges the Obama administration faces as it approaches its first few months: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and the broader Middle East all present immediate dangers. In the longer term, China is both a key economic partner and a potential regional challenger. Latin America, including Mexico, requires tending, and Africa needs continued assistance. Given these challenges, there will be a real temptation for Washington to view European security with less urgency, just as many Europeans have feared would eventually happen. After all, if the largest nations in continental Europe are content to grant Russia the sphere of influence it seems to seek, <strong>American</strong> leaders may not want to expend valuable energy and time resisting that course. While this would be disappointing and dangerous for the newer allies in Central Europe, who have contributed much where the United States has asked, the burden will be on them and like-minded Western European nations to work to close policy gaps to manageable scales. The greater risk, however, is that basic questions on beliefs and purposes go unanswered and fester, leaving NATO less able to take united decisions. Washington could find itself working on critical issues alongside a handful of allies, leaving the organization to attend to less controversial, and less important, issues. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, fears of NATO’s irrelevance could thus be realized. Cause for Celebration This year’s 60th anniversary will, like all such milestones, prompt a new version of the old debate about 26 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 “Whither NATO?” Such questions are especially grave this year. The United States will find it much harder to cope with the global array of security issues it faces with a weakened trans-Atlantic security relationship; and Europe will find such a weakened relationship harmful to its project of economic and political integration. NATO members need to use this year to begin answering the hard questions that await its leaders at this month’s summit. Yet a future of irrelevance and ineffectiveness for NATO is far from inevitable. For the first time in more than 40 years, France will rejoin the Alliance’s integrated military command structure, a step that could bring with it the resolution of difficult issues surrounding NATO’s cooperation with the European Union. The allies may agree at this month’s summit to launch a major strategic review, The cases of Afghanistan and enlargement raise questions not of means to ends, but of the ends themselves. which could offer the opportunity to clarify the organization’s purposes. And Moscow may continue to assert its interests in ways that force NATO to rally to the deterrence of aggression aimed at Central European allies. NATO’s many successes have come in a sustained atmosphere of crisis, characterized by differences among members about means and methods. Accordingly, any forecast of the Alliance’s demise should be treated with more than a grain of historical salt. But the key to NATO’s future will be a recognition that the differences facing the organization on its 60th anniversary are real, and that surmounting those differences will be more difficult and require a greater sustained effort than in the past. Europe and North America should make that effort the center of NATO’s attention in April and beyond. ■ 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 27
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 24 and 25: F O C U S O N N AT O A T 6 0 ANSWER
Page 26 and 27: F O C U S NATO’s International Se
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?