NATO Summiteers: Can an will Alliance member states sacrifice a
measure of sovereignty in order for
NATO to remain relevant?
Price of NATO Survival:
Diminished Sovereignty (Die Zeit, Germany)
“They fear a loss
of control over where and how their militaries will be deployed. They find it difficult
to agree on common weapons systems, because each country has its own arms
industry. They fear that a clearer division of labor could lead to problems in time
of emergency, because they may not be able to rely on their NATO partners… Although
these are legitimate concerns, member states have no choice if they want to
halt the decay of their alliance.”
By Claudia Major
Translated By John Mades
May 18, 2012
Germany - Die Zeit – Original Article (German)
In 2011, a high-ranking U.S. military officer is said to
have remarked that for the United States, so different were the military
contributions to NATO operations in Libya, it was like Snow White and the 27
dwarves. Of course the “dwarfish” Europeans, above all the French and British, instigated
the war. But without the American contributions, there would have been no way for
the continentals to have carried out the operation: around 90 percent of
military actions were possible thanks only to the support of the United States.
In point of fact, the state of NATO’s striking power is
quite poor. But in spite of this, NATO has lost none of its political or
military ambition: It wants the capacity to simultaneously wage two large wars and six small
operations worldwide. In addition, its members, including Germany, expect the Alliance
to continue to guarantee their own security. Yet the reality appears is
different: Because the European member states are equipping the Alliance so
inadequately, they are in danger of becoming “dwarf troops.”
In particular, the Europeans are dismantling entire sections
of their militaries thanks to economic necessities forced upon them by the
financial crisis: the Dutch have no more tanks, Great Britain gave up its
ground-attack aircraft overnight, and Germany has stopped purchasing unmanned
aircraft – known as drones. And there are no indications that this situation
will improve in the foreseeable future. Governments still have to long struggle
ahead with the consequences of the financial crisis. In addition, the pendulum
is now swinging back in the direction of recession.
The U.S. is asking for more European involvement
The U.S. is no longer willing to accept the pecuniary
contributions of Europeans toward the common defense: Although it is only one
of 28 NATO member states, the United States currently pays 75 cents of every
dollar NATO receives. But now it, too, is being strongly impacted by the
financial crisis, and moreover, it has put the focus of their security interests
on Asia.
So how can NATO’s capacity to take military action be ensured
in the future? Both here and abroad, “Smart Defense” is the answer that NATO
Secretary General Rasmussen has been circulating: member states should set
priorities and concentrate their shrinking defense spending on essential skills;
they should more-effectively cooperate on reducing costs and rely more on a
transnational division of labor, or to put it another way: specialize.
SEE ALSO ON THIS:
Frontier Post, Pakistan: American ‘Grandees’ Should Pay Pakistan and be Grateful
The Nation, Pakistan: Pakistanis will React Badly to Reopening NATO Routes
Le Monde, France: Pakistan and America: Preparing for a Timely ‘Divorce’
Frontier Post, Pakistan: Whistleblower Unravels America’s Afghan ‘Hoax’
The Nation, Pakistan:
Apologies Won't 'Wash Away' NATO's Crimes in Pakistan
La Jornada, Mexico:
Senators and U.S. Drones: What Else are They Hiding?
The Nation, Pakistan:
Downing American Drones: Iran Shows Pakistan the Way
The Nation, Pakistan:
Time for Pakistan to Down America's 'Bionic Dragons'
The Nation, Pakistan:
Cost of Friendship with America is Far Too High
The Nation, Pakistan:
For NATO Supply to Resume, U.S. Must Admit to Guilt
The Daily Jang, Pakistan:
Is Washington Behind Pakistan's 'Memogate'?
The Frontier Post, Pakistan:
U.S. Withdrawal Plans 'Spell Doom' for Pakistan
The ideas sound compelling: if states give up their obsolete
equipment, merge their training facilities to use their combined purchasing
power to buy, hold, and use the next generation weapons systems, then they can
remain operations-capable despite having less money. There are already some
examples of this: In the Balkans, NATO states have begun so-called Air Policing - protecting
airspace on a rotating basis so that the Baltic states can relinquish this mission and save money on their
own air forces.
Speaking officially, all member states are for more
cooperation. At the NATO Summit in Chicago, they will present their “Smart Defense”
projects. But the problems of the Alliance will not be resolved with the proposals
on the table, the savings from which would be limited. What the Alliance needs,
for instance, are new transport helicopters, drones and reconnaissance
capacities. Here, member states are simply reintroducing already existing and ongoing
collaboration.
The new Smart Defense projects involve - with few exceptions
- areas like logistics, training and mine clearing. But the potential savings
in these areas is limited. Furthermore, these projects fail to fill the most
serious gaps in capability, which were revealed by the Libya operation and
worsened by the financial crisis. NATO members can only tap further savings if
they consciously and in an organized fashion take upon themselves greater reliance
on their partners when it comes to security policy.
Concerns over loss of control
But up to now, when confronted with the diminished
sovereignty this would require, NATO member states have balked at this
potential boost in striking power and savings. They fear a loss of control over
where and how their militaries will be deployed. They also find it difficult to
agree on common weapons systems, because each country has its own arms industry.
They also fear that a clearer division of labor could lead to problems in time
of emergency, because they may not be able to rely on their NATO partners. For
how can it be ensured that an operation will be carried out if a partner nation
doesn’t want to participate, even if its military capacities, for example
aircraft, are needed? How can we guarantee that a country will not be left out
in the cold during an operation when another suddenly withdraws its troops? How
can it we ensure that a member state isn’t slacking off at the expense of the rest?
Although there are legitimate concerns [about further
integration], member states have no choice if they want to halt the decay of
their military alliance. If the Alliance is to continue to be relevant, its
members must adjust to the new reality: If its military striking power declines,
the alliance cannot afford to do very much. In other words, if it is to live up
to even a diminished level of ambition, greater collaboration is essential.
The larger European “dwarves” have a particular
responsibility: Germany, France and Great Britain must toughen their partners
in Europe and lead the way to Smart Defense by example. These are the major
tasks for the period after the NATO Summit in Chicago.
YOUR DONATION MAKES OUR WORK AS
A NON-PROFIT POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.
