French President Hollande German Chancellor Merkel, President Obama
and NATO Secretary General
Rasmussen, at the end of NATO's Summit
in Chicago, May 21. Are
Europeans, particularly the Germans, willing to
do what is necessary to maintain
what they like to call ‘the greatest
military alliance in
history’?
‘Lost Nation’ of Germany
is NATO’s Biggest Problem (Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany)
"Germany is
untrustworthy and its military weakness hurts the Alliance. … The way things
are going, the Alliance will fail to develop into an international grouping in
which Americans and Europeans - together with Russians - are willing and able
to defend their vital interests anywhere they are severely threatened -
particularly, one might presume, the Greater Middle East."
When the summit in Chicago is over, NATO heads of state will
again try to convince us that the Alliance is in the best possible condition
and that it will secure our common future. In reality, diplomatic language cannot obscure the fact that this year's NATO Summit will
leave critical questions unanswered.
The Alliance stands at a historic turning point. It really
must explain how it intends to remain relevant. That would include coming up
with responses to key issues that are changing the world’s strategic landscape.
For one thing, we must address the consequences of the fact that U.S.
priorities have shifted toward the Pacific and that due to limited resources, the Americans will inevitably be less present and
active in Europe.
Even with a dramatic slowdown in America's defense efforts,
the quality and quantity of America’s presence in the Pacific will in no way be
reduced. On the contrary. With its efforts, Washington
is taking into account potential crises in the region - on the Korean Peninsula,
insofar as Japan's potentially changing role, the preservation of Taiwan’s
security, and relations between Pakistan and India with the backdrop of the
Kashmir problem and the India-China relationship.
But this shift toward the Pacific doesn't have to be detrimental
to us.
On the one hand, Europeans also have a vital interest in
maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific, and the United States, given the immense
potential for crisis and conflict, ensures this stability and in this area, complements
China.
On the other hand, this development will almost inevitably
lead Europe to pool its defense efforts, thereby achieving not only deeper
integration in the defense sector, but putting Europeans in a position to keep
their forces up to date – and at a manageable cost. Today, almost all nations set
out to organize their defenses independently. But if this continues, it will mean
an inability to equip their forces for the four-dimensional operations of the
21st century, and it will make interoperability with U.S. forces impossible.
In this context, Germany is untrustworthy. The expectation
on the part of our most important European allies and America that we would
adopt a reasonable strategic role in and for Europe was bitterly disappointed
when our country sidelined itself in the face of a looming humanitarian crisis
in Libya. Germany's abstention at the U.N. Security Council has far-reaching
consequences.
The German position is also
diametrically opposed to the future needs of European security: With the U.S.
commitment to Europe diminishing, Europeans will have to handle future crises
on their own. This historical failure on the part of Germany is a result
of the many caveats imposed by the federal government and Bundestag, which have
tied the hands of German soldiers in action - in combat against piracy and also
in Afghanistan. This has prevented our soldiers from shouldering the same risks
as their NATO comrades.
Finally, in Washington and elsewhere, it has not gone
unnoticed that while the [German] army has initiated necessary reforms, the
process is completely underfunded. In a report for the Chicago summit on the
condition of the Alliance, the renowned "Atlantic Council" determined
that Germany's military weakness and its aversion to risk were NATO's biggest
problem. Germany is referred to as a "lost nation."
Meanwhile, the federal government is struggling to
comprehend the consequences of this misguided policy, which represents such a danger
to our country. In the chancellor’s policy statement issued for the NATO
summit, she clearly stated, as did the defense minister at the NATO Council,
that the problem had been identified.
And so far, the federal government has not distinguished
itself in furthering an improvement in relations between NATO and Russia. The Alliance
has made no substantial progress on the critically-important issue of whether
and how to establish a shared missile defense system. Russia has long expressed
a clear willingness for genuinely equal cooperation on the project, would be a
litmus test for the Alliance’s sincerity on the issue of partnership and mutual
transparency on strategic issues. The lack of willingness for cooperation that
became so apparent at the summit therefore represents a failure of far more
than just a project.
While American military personnel are little different from their Russian comrades, the failure of the planned joint missile defense system would destroy at the root that which could serve as a first and critical step towards overcoming outdated structures on both sides. Inexplicably, NATO still refuses to
guarantee to the Russians that the missile defense system would not be directed
at its strategic response capability.
France needs to change its thinking
Although the U.S. repeatedly asserts that Russia has no need
to worry about the issue, the guarantee Moscow demands has failed to
materialize. President Obama would have to have a suitable treaty approved and
ratified in the Senate, which seems impossible given the domestic political
confrontation between the two parties in Congress; and Republican Mitt Romney still
considers Russia America’s most dangerous enemy. This view fails to recognize
that our most dangerous and threatening risks - radical Islam and terrorism -
are concentrated in the Middle East, and thus right at our doorstep.
Posted by Worldmeets.US
The question of how the Alliance can maintain its strategic
relevance has yet to find a satisfactory answer. Even for the summit, NATO has failed
to put together a package of proposals on the future of nuclear deterrence,
arms control and missile defense, issues of great importance to Moscow. These
plans will have to take Russian concerns into account or Russia will feel isolated.
This was greatly contributed to by France's outdated attitude
on all nuclear issues. No wonder the Russian leadership showed no particular interest in participating at the summit. The
way things are going, the Alliance will fail to develop into an international grouping
in which Americans and Europeans - together with Russians - are willing and
able to defend their vital interests anywhere they are severely threatened - particularly,
one might presume, the Greater Middle East.
*Vice Admiral Ulrich Weisser was a long-time head of the
Policy Planning Staff at the Ministry of Defense and has written several books
on NATO.
