Prospects for NATO

It appears I'm not the only one who is skeptical about the future of NATO.  Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration expects The Atlantic Alliance (06/08/04) of the future to be not NATO, but a practical cooperation between the United States and the European Union.

When Americans think of the Atlantic alliance, they normally think of the military partnership between the United States and Europe (i.e., NATO). But for European nations, like France, the Atlantic alliance is increasingly coming to mean the European Union. While an American general has and always will command NATO, the 25 nations of the European Union will soon begin deploying their own forces under the command of a European officer.  Moreover, when NATO invoked its collective defense clause after 9/11 and was ready to participate as an alliance in the war in Afghanistan, the United States ignored Europe and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan without NATO. ...

The real question is whether the United States, France and the rest of Europe can remain staunch allies or global partners as they did during the Cold War if they disagree about the institutional arrangements, the threat, and the means to deal with the threat? The answer is no. Though it is not in the interest of either the United States or Europe to sever their alliance, but this new selective partnership will be different from that which has existed since D-Day.

During the Cold War, the U.S. relationship with Europe was carried on through NATO.  Economic differences were put aside to maintain the strategic relationship. Now that situation is reversed. Despite the attention given to Asian nations like China, Europe still remains America's largest trading partner - our largest source of foreign investment, and our favorite place to invest. For example, since the US invasion of Iraq, US investment in Europe has increased by 30 percent. As a result, the primary U.S.-European relationship must engage the European Union, be conducted on the basis of equality, and focus on specific issues.

Korb doesn't seem to be making a pessimistic prediction as a cover for griping about "old Europe."  He is saying "NATO is dead though nobody wants to say it out loud," and looking to a more practical future "Atlantic alliance."

Ron Brownstein reports on a statement to be formally issued this week by 26 former national security officials expressing their dismay over the disastrous course of the Bush administration's foreign policy: Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go Los Angeles Times 06/13/04.  They are particularly concerned about the astonishing degree to which Bush's gang has managed to alienate countries that a few short years ago were close American allies:

"We just felt things were so serious, that America's leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration's approach," said Harrop, who earlier served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan.

"A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration — by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," [William] Harrop [ambassador to Israel under the Bush 1 administration] said.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by George H.W. Bush during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views.

"Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We've all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things."