In a series of events in Washington this week, the Obama Administration has laid out its vision for the future of NATO. As part of NATO’s on-going review of its Strategic Concept, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates have each made public speeches outlining what NATO should look like in the future. And for the most part, their recommendations follow The Heritage Foundation’s Principles and Proposals for NATO Reform:
- The Alliance needs a new threat perception to address asymmetrical threats such as terrorism, cyberterrorism, ballistic missile attack, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
- As a pillar of the international security system, NATO remains indispensable, and its enlargement needs to continue;
- The Alliance needs new, more flexible decision making procedures;
- Article V remains the heart and soul of NATO;
- NATO must confront security challenges both in and out of area; and
- NATO needs more equitable sharing of risks and responsibilities within the alliance.
Secretary Gates’ comments were particularly hard hitting, decrying Europe’s demilitarization and pitiful defense spending. Just four (Bulgaria, France, Greece, and the U.K.) of the 21 EU-NATO members spend the NATO benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense, and this simply has to change. NATO needs to find a more equitable solution to the questions of manpower, equipment, and resources because in today’s challenging economic environment, the United States should not be expected to carry Europe’s load.
However, there are two elements of the Administration’s vision for NATO’s future which are particularly worrisome. Secretary Clinton once again stated the Administration’s support for a separate EU defense policy and for the Lisbon Treaty. The EU’s existing defense policy has provided NATO with little or no valuable complementarity, and serious questions remain about the EU’s motivation in pursuing a military identity. NATO’s primacy in the transatlantic security alliance must remain supreme and the Administration should make this a central element of NATO’s Strategic Concept.
Secondly, neither Ambassador Daalder nor Secretary Clinton gave a clear answer on the question of whether U.S. nuclear weapons will remain in Europe. Ambassador Daalder is a well-known arms control enthusiast, absolutely committed to President Obama’s vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world. It is rumored that Daalder wants to see U.S. nuclear weapons removed from Europe in their entirety. However, a withdrawal of America’s nuclear arsenal from Europe at this time would send the message that the transatlantic alliance no longer matters. It would be premature and profoundly destabilizing, inviting the worst kinds of provocation from regimes such as Iran.
NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept is a big opportunity for the alliance to rally around a new security and defense vision for the 21st Century. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen is a strong leader who will ultimately draft the document. However, he will need a will of iron to make it meaningful.
President Obama’s decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is entirely a political one - in order to appease Russia. This decision is a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its near-abroad. It represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and in future, America’s allies will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises.
It also leaves the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic - Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic - were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama has said he will now pursue will not satisfy those criteria.
Neither has Washington secured any great concession from Russia. There is scant evidence that Moscow intends to deliver anything credible in return for Washington’s abandonment of the Third Site, especially with regard to the growing Iranian threat. There is equally little indication that the Obama Administration’s risky policy of engagement with Iran is working either.
The decision – to concentrate resources defending against short range missiles and not field defenses against long range missile attacks – makes no sense. To be truly strategic about national and international security, the United States must defend against current and future threats. Presenting a choice between defending against short or long range missile attack is a false one. Ballistic missile threats can emerge with little advanced warning, and as Admiral Mike Mullen (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) recently stated, Iran has already amassed sufficient uranium to build an atomic bomb.
Defending against short-range missile attack is hugely important. But it can not come at the expense of protecting America and Europe from other threats. At present Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attack while America only has limited defenses against such an attack. This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.
This is a loss-leader for President Obama: a strategic loss, a security loss, a diplomatic loss and a major loss for America’s prestige on the world stage.