Is NATO still relevant ?

Résumé du document

All alliances are like roses: they wither and decay, said General de Gaulle, the former French President. The NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization looks like a counter-example to this statement. During the Munich Conference, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, claimed, "As an alliance we have never been stronger. We have never been more united. We have never been more resolved to move forward together." The prevailing opinion, however, was quite the opposite. On both sides of the Atlantic, no one would say that this statement strongly reflects the current reality. On the contrary, NATO is actually a huge object of controversies and is at a crossroads, trying to define its future, if there is any. Is the NATO still relevant in a world of evolving coalitions and global economies? Is there a place for a military partnership originally formed to counter balance the Soviet Union (USSR) that no longer exists? Will the eternally-fraught transatlantic relationship be the downfall of the most powerful military alliance in the world? In order to understand this debate better, I will first present the framework of the current controversy surrounding NATO, and then describe the point of view of NATO as well. I will consequently discuss the fact that, without a positive reformation, NATO will no longer be relevant in a post Cold War world.

Extraits

[...] For the main advocates of the Alliance, it is as if ‘since NATO expands, it means that it is still relevant.' They use this reality as self- sufficient to appreciate its value. Moreover, the fact that, as early as 1991, the former communist countries turned toward the alliance, looking for the protection it insures, is proof of NATO's legitimacy according to them. Paradoxically, at the moment when interrogations concerning the usefulness of NATO started rising in the West, right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and so the evaporation of the threat, the countries of Eastern and Central Europe began asking for their integration. [...]

[...] NATO's relevance and legitimacy are declining. But to me, the new context around global security must be an opportunity to redefine targets instead of making this trend a sign of the futility of NATO in general. The Alliance still benefits from quite a few assets: it gathers the most powerful countries in the world, it benefits from experience, its profit from well-established infrastructures, etc. NATO has the potential to find a new resort but definitely has to redefine its mission, its targets, its capabilities and to make them match up if it want to remain relevant, reliable, and avoid internal contradictions. [...]

[...] - PAPACOSMA Victor and HEISS Mary Ann, NATO in the post-cold war era: does it have a future? St. Martin's Press - www.nato.int Munich Conference, February 2nd 2002 Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Article the North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C April 1949. October 18- In 1966, General de Gaulle decided the withdrawal of France from NATO's military integrated structure Philip Gordon is the director of the centre on the United States and France at the Brookings Institution. [...]

[...] It is not the first time that NATO experienced a crisis. Quite the opposite: the existence of the alliance is far from having been trouble- free. From the Cuban missile crisis,[4] to France's withdrawal from NATO's integrated defense,[5] the alliance has had to overcome several challenges. Despite these issues, it was the functioning of the organization that was suspected more than its existence itself. Thus, from a constructivist point of view, the doubts about the significance of the alliance itself are far more perilous. [...]

[...] In such a context, does NATO still have a future? Is there constructive to conserve a military organization primarily created to counter a threat that no longer exists? Is it right to argue that its mission is fully completed? Is NATO capable of finding a new resort? II The arguments of NATO's advocates While involved in great debate about its relevance, NATO still benefits from vast backing. The supporters of NATO fight in order to defend this institution. They used to claim the significance of this military relationship and its necessity in order to insure collective defense using several arguments. [...]