RSS

Karsten Voigt, Coordinator of German-American Cooperation at the Federal Foreign Office, Berlin, has very kindly provided Atlantic Community with a copy of his article "Ten Theses on NATO in a Changed World." You can download the full text of the article as a PDF here.

Mr. Voigt makes a number of compelling suggestions and recommendations in his article, a selection of which have been listed below:

1. Establish a new strategic concept.
   A common political vision of the future of NATO is required together with establishing its role in addressing global and regional challenges and risks. In order to develop such a concept, institutional, procedural and technical matters must be taken into consideration. The new Obama administration may provide an impetus for such a move.
    
   
2. Europe needs to be the equal of the US within NATO.
   The US remains relevant to European security and foreign policy, whereas Europe's relevance to the US is becoming increasingly selective. The European allies will only be able to influence the US when the US feels it is relevant to the solution of specific issues. The issue of Europe being able to influence the US is more pertinent than it was prior to the end of the Cold War.
    
   
3. Better determine where and when NATO becomes involved.
   While NATO's values are global, the political, economic and military means for defending our interests are limited. Careful consideration must be given to future commitments, and NATO should not be driven by the desire of the US to commit to a particular engagement on its say so.
    
   
4. Emphasize NATO's solidarity.
   The historic context and geostrategic situation of some NATO members are still different to those of "older" Allies. The "newer" Allies must be reminded that NATO is focused on increasing levels of stability and security and will not sacrifice their security interests as part of a bigger plan, such as to increase cooperation with Russia, but rather increase stability in wider regions.
    
   
5. Improve cooperative relationship with Russia.
   A partnership with Russia will not be easy and they will often disagree with NATO's opinions and vice versa, in part due to their different view of the world. If a successful partnership can be forged, progress could be made on nuclear disarmament and arms control. Furthermore, NATO could become more effective in their policy towards Iran and Afghanistan if Russia supported their efforts.

We would like to invite you, our members, to comment on these proposals on the future of NATO and share your own policy recommendations on how NATO can face up to the global challenges in the years to come. For example, what are the most pressing challenges going to be and what can NATO do to ensure it is in the best possible position to effectively address these issues?

Views can be submitted as Your Opinion pieces, which should be 500-700 words in length and contain a strong thesis - including policy recommendations and well supported arguments. Alternatively, please add your comments to this article in response to Mr. Voigt's suggestions.

Karsten Voigt has been Coordinator for German-American Cooperation in the German Foreign Office since 1999. He has worked in the German Parliament since 1976, most notably as foreign affairs spokesman for the governing SPD party. Mr. Voigt is a member of the Atlantic Initiative Advisory Board.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Olaf Theiler: Cohesion Vital for NATO's Future
• Fabian Martin Lieschke: How to Extend NATO's MAP to Ukraine and Georgia
• Ira Louis Straus: A Bulgarian Should Head NATO

April 30, 2009

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

There is a natural tension between interests relevant to NATO because of its regional identity and the interests relevant to NATO because it is a part of the world. NATO, unlike the UN, is an organization of nations based on the commonality of its core interests and values. To achieve many of their common goals, the NATO nations will need the help of like-minded nations in other parts of the world. All of the nations that share the goal of a peaceful world, a world in which governments and elites are not parasitical on their citizens, and a world in which decisions are made on the basis of evidence and reasoning rather than on things that individuals are required by their masters to believe, will need to make common cause. Humanity needs an organization that includes all these nations, and the organization will need to form and maintain a grand strategy.

The greatest of world leaders are the ones who are secure enough to rebuke tendencies toward inverse culling. The ability to resist egocentricity permits highly competent leaders to be team players, and to accept even more talented individuals into the mix. Whether any individual U.S. leaders (or any other world leaders) are able to be helpful in this way remains to be seen. Perhaps simply identifying the goal will be helpful.

How to handle membership in such an organization so as to keep the focus of member nations on the survival and relative prosperity of human beings rather than on the game of competitive power brokering will require substantive thought on fundamental principles for good social contracts.

Such an organization would by definition set itself off from nations ruled by individuals who want power for themselves and their cohorts, who seek to rule their subjects by force, by manipulations of economic factors, or by their imposing systems of belief on those whom they intend to control. North Korea is perhaps the most obvious of the counterparts to an organization of progressive nations, but there are many other repressive and tyrannical regimes in the world, and there are also sub-populations of like groups in even the most democratic of nations. How to at least neutralize the corrosive effects of such factions will be a perennial problem for a world union of peace seeking nations.

Tags: | NATA and beyond | social contract | grand strategy |

April 30, 2009

Chartolani

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

when speaking about NATO - Russia relationships, it's of particular importance to mention the disagreement on Russian Georgian war and it's consequences. Russia has infriged international law by occupying independent country. It has also infriged the ceasefire agreement reached by French president Sarkozy. There ar no signs of democracy there. So speaking about how important it is that Russia has a little less nuclear bombs won't solve any problems. EU and NATO should do much more than it is doing right now to contribute to the democratization of Russia. There were some signs of democratic developments in Russia but western democracies just took it for granted and now we have totalitarian regime there. It is a BIG MISTAKE to concentrate on nuclear programs and Afganistan. It only shows that NATO asks for Russias help, instead of developing partnership, a partnership that won't compromise on universal values, like the right of territorial integrity of Georgia, which was infriged and where russian soldiers are killing innocent people

Tags: | 968vdpjd |

April 30, 2009

Ria Voorhaar, Atlantic Community, Bronze Contributor (17)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Times have changed dramatically since the creation of NATO and I dont think NATO has done enough to change with those times. While it could be argued that Europe has more need than ever to combine its military strength, the question that needs to be asked is whether Europe still requires "a great and powerful friend" as it felt it did in earlier times. The position of the US has changed, and while historical bonds may encourage a continued relationship, it is hard to see how the balance of the modern relationship stacks up. I think NATO should be disbanded and a new organisation formed - one that reflects the nature of this century, not the last.

Tags: | NATO |

May 3, 2009

Diane Strauss

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

When Berlin’s wall falled down, the sovietic block collapsed, the Atlantic Alliance found itself without a clear enemy. The world faces now challenging new threats asking for more security, and it may be time to create new links with the enemy of old times.
If Russia is not anymore the power it used to be, it must not be forgotten that it still has a fundammmental role and influence in Eastern Europe. That Russia still has its word to say on the politics of this region was the main message of this georgian war.
In this sens, a first step towards Russia would proove that this former world power has not been put aside from the diplomatic game and should help its relationship to normalize with the international community. Signals could thus be send through softer ways than war.
That is why, despite the recent and worrying events of August, dialogue is to be renewed with Russia and a given hand for cooperation from Nato is a major positive standpoint.

May 4, 2009

Oleksiy Kolomiyets

• 4
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

This year, almost clear, can be decisive and critical for NATO. False and strange illusions of many European NATO-members that the transatlantic policy of the Obama’s administration will be upturned, in fact appeared as illusions. Instead ‘hard unilateralism’, as Robert Kagan wrote, ‘soft unilateralism’ is dawning. The strategic situation in Afghanistan for NATO is becoming almost critical, but the operation as such – more and more ‘americanised’. For ‘a unity’ of the allies this tendency does reaching to a critical point.

An economic situation in the European continent will further deteriorate, in the meantime a political calamity in many states will further undermine already weak possibilities of the national incomes to NATO. Already now, Belgium, Germany, Spain and some others reduced their military budgets to less than 1,3 % GNP. This tendencies will only raise a skepticism in the USA towards as the Alliance in a whole as many European allies in particular.

Such geostrategic determinations for a New Strategic Concept’s preparation are. A new geostrategic realism has emerged: “The Trans-Atlantism Vision of the past may no be longer possible in the future”. Many European members both of the EU and NATO have to concede this fact. Neglecting it can deteriorate the situation in NATO further. Blocking the Alliance’s future enlargement will also deteriorate it with the background that the NATO’s enlargement strategy should be re-written and based on strict rules and conditions (so-called NATO acquis). Appeasement policy towards Russia will only made a situation inside NATO more unstable and suspicion. An unfocused deterrence can be regarded as a crucial cornerstone for NATO responding to the Medvedev-Putin’s Russian regime.

For now, nobody can predict: “Will a drafting of a new Strategic Concept end with a success?” In the meantime, if this work is rather succeeding, a Concept is a paper only, alas strategic. The allies should determine: ‘Where NATO’s ‘unique’ is for today and will be for the future?’ But this ‘unique’ have to based on its own transformational development. And a very transformed unique should deserve a victory. It’s a political algorithm, which does require a common strategic thinking and approach. They don’t exist for today and hardly will emerge in the near future. Drafting a new Strategic Concept will be the key, possibly final, testing for NATO on a political integrity and credibility.

Oleksiy Kolomiyets,
Centre for European and Transatlantic Studies,
Kyiv, Ukraine

May 5, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

This all mounts up to drafting and accepting a new treaty for NATO - a process of such complexity and duration that little hope can be put in favour of it in the forseeable future. But once the world deals with the crisis and unless anything unexpected happens like a major terrorist attack or a regional war in which NATO or its pillar-countries would have to intervene immediately, it is a concept worth considering. The Washington Treaty is obsolete - like the current NATO concept as a whole - and needs to be replaced with something more modern, perhaps less exclusive and maybe more flexible. Otherwise NATO will continue to struggle within an old legal framework that the outside world and threats it creates do not give a damn about.

Tags: | a new treaty for NATO |

May 6, 2009

Sami Faltas, Centre for European Security Studies, the Netherlands

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Karsten Voigt's five points are well taken. Useful as points of departure. Unfortunately, they tend to beg the big questions. Of course NATO needs a new strategic concept ('plan' would be a better word in English). But what would that strategic plan contain? And if we are to wait for the US government to take the lead on such a plan, how do we reconcile this with our desire as Europeans to be an equal partner with the US?

If we Europeans really wanted to be on an equal footing with the USA in NATO, we should have a real common defence policy, armed forces that are capable of sustaining a major combat role in places like Afghanistan, and the political will to shoulder such responsibilities. We don't have any of these things, and I doubt we will acquire them any time soon. So perhaps we should tone down the rhetoric about equal partnership.

Karsten Voigt raises more questions than he answers. That is is not bad, but it means we still have a long way to go.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org