It’s my impression that the warbloggers have gone rather quiet in recent weeks, which I suppose is the best available alternative to admitting that they were wrong on the facts of the matter. Iraq is at best going to be a mess, and at worst a complete disaster. Democracy, whiskey, sexy how are ya. But the damage that has been done to international security institutions is just as bad. The UN’s crisis of legitimacy has gotten most attention, but NATO has suffered very nearly as much. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The “Post”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29688-2003Dec2.html has a piece today on Rumsfeld’s reaction to a plan for a separate European Union defence planning structure; he suggests it’s a threat to NATO. He’s right – but his own administration has done far more more fundamental damage to NATO, by sidelining it after September 11. NATO no longer has any political purpose for the allies; it’s no wonder that the Europeans are gradually extricating themselves.
What was NATO good for in the first place? The best account of NATO’s origins that I know of is John Ikenberry’s book, “After Victory”:http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6981.pdf. Ikenberry argues that NATO and the other post-WWII institutions had the purpose of underpinning credible commitments between the US and its allies. The US had an incentive to create a post-war order that would lock in its interests, but had to persuade a fractious bunch of allies, which were fearful of US power, to sign up. The best way to do this was to create institutions such as NATO, which would credibly commit the US to pay some attention to its allies’ wants and needs, rather than riding roughshod over them. And NATO worked – it provided a basic security guarantee that underpinned the transatlantic relationship for half a century.
The Bush administration has effectively trashed this relationship. When NATO invoked Article 5 (the mutual defence clause) after September 11, for the first time in NATO’s history, the US politely thanked its allies, and went on to make its plans without them. It had decided that ad-hoc coalitions were more flexible and useful than operations planned through NATO. This may have made logistic sense, but it notably excluded the allies from any real role in the decision-making process. Which was indeed the point; the US saw them as being more of an encumbrance than a help. NATO has been relegated to dishwasher-in-chief; managing peacekeeping operations, ensuring the interoperability of military equipment and the like. The Bush administration has only been interested in NATO’s political dimension when it could be used to constrain its allies, for example, by forcing them to shore up Turkey in the lead-up to the Iraq war. It certainly hasn’t shown any willingness to be constrained by NATO itself. NATO’s most important political mission – maintaining trust between the US and its allies, through a US commitment to take heed of its allies’ interests – is moribund.
Thus, it’s no surprise that the Europeans have started to create their own structures – or that Britain has been dragged along with the rest of the EU. As matters stand, there’s precious little advantage, and many disadvantages for the Europeans in NATO. The current administration sees NATO as a useful way of disciplining its allies, but is notably unwilling to submit to any discipline itself. This is why the Europeans are balking, and France has been able to get its way in creating the nucleus of a separate European defence structure. Rumsfeld and his mates are finding out that a-la-carte alliance-building has its costs for US power. But they’re finding out too late – and there’s not much that they can do about it.
Update: Fareed Zakaria’s “op-ed”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27057-2003Dec1.html speaks eloquently to the broader problem of US policy towards its allies.
bq. What is most dismaying about this state of affairs is that for the past 50 years the United States has skillfully merged its own agenda with the agendas of others, creating a sense of shared interests and values. When Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy waged the Cold War, they also presented the world with a constructive agenda dealing with trade, poverty and health. They fought communism with one hand and offered hope with the other. We have fallen far from that model if the head of the Chinese Communist Party is seen as presenting the world with a more progressive agenda than the president of the world’s leading democracy.
This is not about leftwing criticism of US foreign policy or the Bush administration (although heaven knows, there’s room for that too). This is about US policy materially damaging long-term US interests.
{ 25 comments }
John isbell 12.03.03 at 5:51 pm
Nice post.
“forcing them to shore up Turkey in the lead-up to the Iraq war.”
As I understood it, this was indeed the alleged intent. The transparent purpose to everyone watching was to backdoor NATO sanction for the US invasion of Iraq, and to open up a second front for the US to move in across Turkey’s borders.
I would imagine that this moment had an impact on our allies’ perception of current US thoughts on NATO’s function.
Doug 12.03.03 at 6:11 pm
In haste here, and fully cognizant that disagreeing with Henry without having a thorough think is a dangerous thing to do intellectually.
However.
NATO’s most important political mission – maintaining trust between the US and its allies, through a US commitment to take heed of its allies’ interests – is moribund.
If that is indeed NATO’s most important political purpose, then it strikes me as dangerously one-sided. That defines NATO as an institution in which the US only gives, and the allies only receive. The allies get security and they get a forum, and they get their interests addressed. That description sounds like a lopsided way to run an alliance. If that’s the way it is, then is there any surprise that a US administration eventually showed up that figured unilateral giving was not the best way to go about foreign policy? Or maybe the definition of what NATO is for, and who is doing what, could use a little refinement?
Anthony C 12.03.03 at 6:40 pm
Sorry Henry, no good.
Or rather, good in parts but ruined by several fairly crude assertions. You are right that Iraq COULD turn into a disaster, but to assert that it is “at best” going to be “a mess” ignores a significant amount of pretty reliable analysis coming out of Iraq (amid large amounts of not-very-reliable gung ho analysis, it must be said). So you’re right that it could go nasty, but by ignoring the fact that it could go rather well too, you undermine the credibility of your argument (would you let your students get away with that sort of blankter assertion). You are also correct in placing a certain amount of blame on the Bush administration in general and Rummy in particular when it comes to NATO diplomacy but in doing so you effectively ignore the history of US-EU NATO relations stretching back over a decade, which, taken as a whole, makes the Americans far less blameworthy and makes the post September 11th decision a lot more understandable.
So I guess what I’m saying is that you’ve got the germ of some good points there but you’ve made a pigs ear of it by selecting only the parts of the story that support the world view you’re trying to put across. Not an uncommon sin in the Blogosphere to be sure, but still.
2:2 – must try harder…
dipnut 12.03.03 at 7:15 pm
I’m a warblogger, and I’ve been pretty quiet lately, so maybe I’m representative of the people you’re taking a swing at, here.
I supported this war, and hardly dared to hope it would go as well as it has. I braced myself for chemical attacks on our troops, for massive terrorist activity here in the U.S., for an irresistible uprising of the Iraqi people against us. None of these things came to pass. Our enemies are astonishingly weak and stupid.
My only disappointment (apart from the hysterical carping of people who should know better) is that we didn’t do it a year – or ten years – earlier. As for NATO: yawn.
I’ll grant, though, that there is a sense of despair creeping over the warblogs; despair at the inconquerable, pathological denial evinced by the antis. Everything that could be said has been said, ad nauseam. Why continue this exercise in futility? Words are useless to span the gulf between us.
Forget about the warbloggers; we’ve pretty much shot our load at this point. Read our soldiers’ web logs, and Iraqis’ web logs. I relish the thought of your anguished mental contortions, should you try to argue in that context.
Antoni Jaume 12.03.03 at 8:39 pm
In as much I perceive, in this moment NATO has no other purpose than to lock European governments out of the control of a substantive part of their own military.
As to Iraq, well the killing of most of the Spanish intelligence team there doesn’t bode well since it imply that the US and allies intelligence is infiltrated.
DSW
Thomas 12.03.03 at 9:17 pm
Why is this about Rumsfeld?
Note this paragraph from the same article:
U.S. officials said they thought the matter had been settled last March when, after four years of negotiations, NATO and the EU signed agreements stipulating that any planning for European military operations would be done within NATO. A month later, however, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg outlined plans for a full-blown military planning headquarters.
________
Isn’t this a story about French and German insistence–going back to the good ole days of the Clinton administration–on having a more independent foreign policy, and French and German refusal to live up to their agreements for even a short period of time.
dipnut 12.03.03 at 9:47 pm
Antoni, I apologize if this will hurt your Spanish pride. But “a substantive part of European governments’ military” is an oxymoron. European military power is not substantive; the French probably have the most of it, and are getting creamed by machete-wielding mobs in Cote d’Ivoire, for crying out loud.
If NATO ever locked down a substantive part of anyone’s military, it was ours. Now NATO is crumbling, and the EU is scrambling to get its defense together, because the American military machine which made Life As Europeans Know It possible, has urgent business elsewhere.
Besides, the “credible commitments” Henry refers to weren’t enough to get Chirac and Schroeder out of Saddam’s boudoir. Who knows? Maybe if they’d ditched Saddam, he would have lost hope and capitulated, and this war wouldn’t have been necessary. But it’s too late now. Screw ’em, and all their claims to “any real role in the decision-making process”. NATO is going down.
“Fearful of US power”: hilarious! We’ll see how they like the absence of US power.
I wish you all luck under the new arrangement, really I do. And I’m sorry about what happened to the Spanish team. I don’t know whether an infiltrator betrayed them, of course, but I’m sure our intelligence is infiltrated. It’s the kind of thing we warbloggers complain about.
Walt Pohl 12.03.03 at 9:54 pm
We here in America are a folksy down-home kinda people, so to talk about why America created NATO, I’m gonna have to use the kinda language we use here on the ranch (we all have ranches).
We made NATO because we wanted the Europeans _inside_ the tent, pissing _out_. Now, thanks to Bush, there’s France and Germany, _outside_ the tent, pissing _in_. Now come 2004, we all gotta clean our shoes.
David W. 12.03.03 at 10:15 pm
Here’s a link to a lively debate on the subject of the EU versus NATO:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2003/issue3/english/debate.html
Enjoy!
David W. 12.03.03 at 10:16 pm
Here’s a link to a lively debate on the subject of the EU versus NATO:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2003/issue3/english/debate.html
Enjoy!
Andrew Boucher 12.03.03 at 10:22 pm
First, it’s in the American national interest for the Europeans to be able to take care of some of their own military needs without the U.S.’ involvement. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the Europeans could have handled by themselves the “mess” in their own backyard that was the ex-Yugoslavia?
If the American Administration is hesitating now, it’s only because the French seem to want it so much, and anything the French want badly is considered automatically suspect for the moment.
Secondly, there is a fundamental inconsistency between Nato and the EU as a strong political unity. Nato guarantees mutual defense, and any country worth its name (which the EU hopes to be) also guarantees mutual defense, but of course not everyone who belongs to Nato belongs to the EU, and vice versa. The US cannot be expected to have a mutual defense agreement with country A who has one with country B, if the US and B have not signed a mutual defense agreement. That would be allowing country A decide American policy. (If country B is attacked then country A must defend it. But then country A will be attacked. And so the U.S. must defend it.) In brief, changes will have to come to Nato no matter what.
Thirdly, I agree with the previous commenter, who noted that your vision of Nato is one-way. Europeans get their views heard even heeded and in return they – they do what? Mostly they think of excuses for doing nothing and criticizing everything.
Fourthly, the warbloggers and the anti-warrers made lots of predictions. Some of which have turned out true, others not. The warbloggers predicted an easy take-over of Iraq all the way to Baghdad. The anti-warbloggers were saying that Baghdad could be a bloodbath. Maybe the anti-warbloggers got one thing right – that it would be a mess. That still doesn’t make them right, since a mess is arguably better than the status quo – Saddam Hussein in power.
Sebastian Holsclaw 12.04.03 at 12:04 am
“When NATO invoked Article 5 (the mutual defence clause) after September 11, for the first time in NATO’s history, the US politely thanked its allies, and went on to make its plans without them.”
The problem is that for people who can provide almost no logistical support and very little useful military support, they still wanted bomb by bomb and target by target planning involvement. This type of problem was later seen in the non-NATO French refusal to provide support bombing when requested by soldiers on the ground.
You do a great job of identifying why NATO is good for Europe. But the US spends most of the money on NATO defense. So shouldn’t it be good for us too?
Henry 12.04.03 at 1:07 am
Sebastian – reasonable points. Regarding your first point, there is a clear mismatch between European and US military capacity (which I did refer to when I said that flexible coalitions made ‘logistical sense.’) But the trade-offs for the US are also clear. I think that Wesley Clark (who had to deal with the micromanagement of relations with the allies as part of his job) is right – the French in particular could be a pain in the ass in day-to-day planning, but it’s a price worth paying.
Regarding your second point, which Doug also raises, Ikenberry provides some interesting answers. You can see some of them for yourself – the “link”:http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s6981.pdf in the post is to the first chapter of Ikenberry’s book, which is available for free online. Ikenberry argues that by binding itself to respect its allies’ interests, the US was able to create an international order that reflected US priorities without having to be directly enforced by the US, and that would potentially outlast the USA’s own decline as a great power. In other words, the tradeoff is between short term control over events, and an international constitutional order that will favour the US over the longer run. I think he has a very strong argument (Dan Drezner too recommends the book somewhere as one of the key IR texts of the last couple of years).
dipnut 12.04.03 at 2:04 am
“An international order that reflected US priorities without having to be directly enforced by the US,” is not what happened, Henry. Instead we got a busload of free riders through the cold war, after which they developed cozy (and profitable) relationships with our enemies. So let ’em off the bus, already.
“[An order that would] outlast the USA’s own decline as a great power.” Pfft. Whose decline as a great power is really relevant here? Wait for it…
“…the French in particular could be a pain in the ass in day-to-day planning, but it’s a price worth paying.” Why? Chirac is less than half a rung above any third-world tinpot dictator, pally with same, corrupt as hell, and no more trustworthy than a rabid dog. Why should we beg his by-your-leave, who is constitutionally incapable of reciprocating our consideration? Better to grab him by the balls and shake him like a rag doll. Better yet to ignore him utterly. He is worse than adversarial; he’s useless.
Don’t belabor us with NATO, on the basis of what some dreamer thought it was supposed to be, once upon a time.
Matthew 12.04.03 at 10:39 am
Macho, macho men!
Did they miss the recent round of “begging to Europe for money and troops”?
Elliott Oti 12.04.03 at 2:40 pm
Google up “Bartholomew telegram” and note the US’s response to the proposed formation of the WEU defence initiative back in 1991.
Then look at Powell’s response to the current defence proposals.
There is a massive disconnect between popular conservative perception about the military relationship between the EU and the US, and reality.
Reality, Messrs. Holsclaw and Boucher, is that since the end of WW2 the US has been extremely consistent in torpedoing any independent European defence initiatives, at the pan-European level, and also at the national level. The level of US control over UK tomahawks, and attempts to lock in European national armies to US suppliers being examples of the latter.
This has been a farsighted deliberate, positive-sum US strategy over the past few decades that has resulted in net benefits for both parties. Powell’s statements in opposition to the EU defense initiatives show that there are still strategists within the current US administration who can view American security concerns in the long term, and not on the basis of fits of pique over the current Iraq adventure.
But the disconnect is startling when one reads American warbloggers. Apparently, under-industrialized, impoverished third world countries
like Iran and Iraq are grave dangers that must be addressed immediately. “Clash of civilisations” and all that.
But it’s OK, nay highly desirable, nay – about F###ING TIME, that the highly-industrialized second-largest, economy on the planet, drifts away from under US control, and starts an independent arms buildup. [The same perfidious French and Germans who, if I read William Safire right, were also supplying Saddam with his WMDs]. Because 30 years down the line things will still be fine and dandy. Because, as we all know, history has taught us that most World Wars are not started by Europeans.
dipnut 12.04.03 at 6:59 pm
Macho, macho men!
Yes, I’m actually all oiled-up and gyrating in front of the mirror right now. My deltoids are like cannonballs; my buns and thighs are straight out of a Tom of Finland cartoon.
Did they miss the recent round of “begging to Europe for money and troops�
No. Neither did we miss the part where Europe turned out its collective pockets and put on the po-face.
dipnut 12.04.03 at 7:00 pm
Reality…is that since the end of WW2 the US has been extremely consistent in torpedoing any independent European defence initiatives…etc.
Your point being? I never said NATO wasn’t the State Department’s idea of foreign policy fun, or that America is the innocent victim of a scam. I said NATO’s not working any more. It’s a Cold War institution, guys. We aren’t going to win the current war by basing nukes in Germany.
This has been a farsighted deliberate, positive-sum US strategy over the past few decades that has resulted in net benefits for both parties.
The advantage to our allies was material: bombs, guns, personnel. Even if we made them buy some of our goods, they still got the benefit of American R&D. The advantage to us was strategic, in that NATO allowed us to establish a forward perimeter against the Commies. That’s a strategic payoff which is less relevant by the hour. Who cares what NATO has done? The question is, what is it doing now?
Apparently, under-industrialized, impoverished third world countries like Iran and Iraq are grave dangers that must be addressed immediately.
Pakistan is just such a country. It has nuclear weapons. Its intelligence service, ISI, is inseparably linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and provided both with major resources and intelligence. Its President, a slightly dodgy fellow in his own right, has survived at least one assassination attempt by these Islamist elements within the government, which he is not strong enough to root out. Eh. Whatever.
You would agree, I assume, that the only options regarding Iraq were indefinite “containment” or “regime change”. Hence you agree that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. And so it was; left to his own devices, Saddam would have had nukes within months. But the most important thing is to avoid putting Dominique de Villepin out of humor. He’s important, you know!
The Iranian mullahs have a nuclear research program well along. They have said that a nuclear exchange with Israel, involving the deaths of millions of Iranians, would be an acceptable price to pay to get rid of the Jews. But that’s all far away. No biggie.
But it’s OK…most World Wars are not started by Europeans.
Well, this one wasn’t.
What you imply though, is that Europe is the grave danger, and that US control of European military might is actually the main mutual benefit of NATO. So long as they are weak and dependent and don’t have the car keys, they won’t go to slaughtering one another again. You’re probably right, and it’s sickening.
Americans have a blind spot where nationalism is concerned. We don’t know its virulence, because we don’t have a nation in the les Gaulois sense. Thus we don’t understand Europeans’ need to subsume their politics in international organizations, or the urgency with which they protest us flouting those organizations. Nor is it easy for us to excuse the anti-Americanism they so desperately need as a unifying ideology. You’d think they could be, like, anti-China or something…but no.
It may be possible for the EU (which is, after all, an international organization) to have military independence without inevitable war. We can hope. Either way, they’ll have to get along without us. That may be shortsighted, but you needn’t look far to see dire threats nowadays.
novakant 12.04.03 at 9:33 pm
OK you wingnut, if you think we suck so badly, then let’s see this through the EU-way:
(1) We’ll disband ISAF and pull out all the European troops from Afghanistan. All aid agencies based in Europe will follow suit.
(2) Then we want all US bases on European ground to be dismantled immediately.
(3) Next we’ll team up with our vile Arab allies and pull all our combined investments out of the US financial market.
This would suck, right? So I guess it’s better for both the US and the EU to keep talking and make amends in their lately somewhat strained relationship. And if you guys manage to boot Bush in 2004 we’ll be give you a big hug, greet you with flowers and generally be much nicer, anyway.
Thomas 12.05.03 at 5:29 am
Uhm, novakant, do you think the average American–right wing or otherwise–enjoys having US troops based in Europe? Do you think there’s something threatening to the US in the removal of a US military presence from Europe?
Say, while you’re suggesting dismantling US military bases, I’m wondering, does that include our presence in Kosovo and Bosnia?
The US, you do realize, has roughly as many troops committed to those European peacekeeping missions as the Europeans have in Afghanistan.
The US will make amends and generally be much nicer to Europe when Europeans grow up and start pulling their own weight. I don’t imagine, however, that that will happen soon.
novakant 12.05.03 at 1:44 pm
Uhm, Thomas, you are capable of understanding irony, right?
In case you are not: I was not seriously suggesting taking any of the measures I outlined above, no one in Europe is suggesting such things, just as no one even in the Bush administration is seriously suggesting that NATO should be disbanded or that the US ties to the EU should be cut off in favor of unilateralism. It’s only some Euro-bashing wingnuts upthread who suggested such things.
My point was that the US and the EU need each other and NATO, that the US can’t possibly go it alone in the WoT and that the shared interests of both parties vastly outweigh the differences. Even the Bush administration realizes this as these headlines should make clear:
Rumsfeld urges larger NATO role in Afghanistan
Powell Calls for Increased NATO and U.N. Roles in Iraq
As to the bases in Europe: they are of a vital strategic interest for the US. Where do you think supplies for the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were coming from? Where do you think the injured soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq are flown to first? Did you ever hear of Ramstein air base ?
As to the question if the average Amercian enjoys having troops in Europe – I have no clue. Suffice it to say that it’s a strategic necessity for the US and that from personal experience I can say that the average American soldiers actually stationed over here generally seem to enjoy their stay and entertain a cordial relationship with us EU-wimps.
As to the claim that Europeans “should grow up and start pulling their own weight”: The EU just recently tried to make moves in that direction, but the reaction from the Bush administration to this was unfortunately rather chilly:
Rumsfeld Cool on European Defense Initiative
Bush reaffirms warning against undermining NATO
Powell warns again about European defence plans
But I’m sure both parties will find a way to solve this dispute in a diplomatic and friendly fashion.
Doug 12.05.03 at 1:53 pm
Going to read Ikenberry, thanks Henry. Will add more later.
Also noting that the FAZ reports yesterday “Nobody Talking About Tervuren Anymore” (Von Tervuren spricht niemand meht; Ein EU-Hauptquartier wird es nicht geben; von Horst Bacia, S. 5).
I forget the two no’s beyond no duplication, but it would be worth asking if plans to strengthen the ESDP inherently have to cross those lines in the sand. See also Lord Robertson’s remarks in Thursday’s FT about who’s reluctant to boost NATO’s budget.
Finally, I remember a discussion in the mid-90s about the characteristics a European Security Organization would have to have to really work well. The answers looked a lot like NATO.
Thomas 12.05.03 at 4:03 pm
Novakant, I confess I don’t see the irony. In any event, I’m not sure you’re right that the US bases in Europe are of strategic significance, and the fact that they are used in the current war doesn’t mean that they couldn’t be replaced if needed.
I don’t doubt that the average US soldier enjoys his or her stay in Europe.
I’m afraid you missed the import of my call for Europe to grow up and pull its own weight. Let’s try this excerpt from one of the articles you linked to:
This is a transformed alliance which is very much in business today,” Robertson told the ministers. “But … capability programs must become real equipment.
“We must make our armed forces genuinely deployable and genuinely useful and NATO governments must have the political will to deploy and use these forces in much larger numbers than at present.”
NATO’s 19 members, not including the United States, have about 1.4 million men and women in uniform, and yet with only 55,000 deployed abroad, they all say they are overstretched.
______________
Sigivald 12.05.03 at 8:35 pm
I find it amusing that Henry can say, with a straight face, “When NATO invoked Article 5 (the mutual defence clause) after September 11, for the first time in NATO’s history, the US politely thanked its allies, and went on to make its plans without them.â€
Does he not recall that it was not “NATO” as a generic entity that invoked Article 5, but the US, and the US “politely thanked” its nominal allies (France and Germany, mainly, but not the UK, which actually is an ally in more than name) because they wished to use Article 5 as a way to control US actions to their own benefit, rather than actually act as if they had been attacked as well?
Is the nominal paper-only “ally” status so uncovered really so important that anything that reveals the farce as a farce should be reviled, and the farce itself blamed on the party that found out the farce was at its expense?
Yes, the US has done “fundamental damage” to the facade of NATO… but the actual problem is that the rest of NATO (mostly) seems to view NATO as a way to get money and/or defense from the US, while providing either nothing much in return (anymore, that is, now that there’s no Soviet threat) or actively hampering US efforts to get NATO to fulfil its Article V commitments in the spirit intended, rather than one of obstruction.
I for one would be happy if Europe started pulling its own defense weight, if only because the spectacle of funding both a maximal welfare state and a modern, effective military force would provide endless amusement, and possibly even push some shrinkage of the entitlement state.
But that’s just me.
Ghost of a flea 12.07.03 at 11:24 pm
Canada’s modest military capability is somehow providing the bulk of the stabilization force in Afghanistan through to August 2004. Despite nearly two-million men under arms and several of the largest economies in the world none of our NATO allies have as yet agreed to take up that work once the Canadian forces leave.
Come on, Henry. When you talk about NATO you actually mean France and Germany and the interests of French and German banking and arms industries. These have financed and armed fascist Serbia, fascist Iraq, fascist North Korea, fascist Cuba and, in fact, anywhere else they can make money.
A new alliance of democracies committed to the liberation of those countries “old Europe” chooses to support is something to be desired. It is the moral torpor of NATO that has killed the organization. You are choosing to blame the messenger.
Comments on this entry are closed.