| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| What Alliance? |
| 2004-06-28 |
| Webster’s defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today’s opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition. The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO’s deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan--teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO’s European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that’s all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance." The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America’s security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer. Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO’s "number one priority," the allies’ record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul. Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September. One of the Bush Administration’s minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan’s transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely. Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world’s third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs? According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France’s total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d’Ivoire--which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests. This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO’s reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq. Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken. |
| Posted by:Mr. Davis |
| #1 I still prefer NATO to the UN, as the percentage of of authoritarian depsots is much lower in NATO. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-28 10:28:34 PM |