NATO

1. NATO WHAT IS IT? WHO NEEDS IT?

2. What is it? • It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization • Comprises most of western Europe, US, Canada and Turkey • It was created in 1949 to meet the need of the western democracies to “contain Communism” because: • Countries of western Europe shattered by war and vulnerable to the Communists

3. 1949-56

4. As they say in Indiana: Where’s it at? This map does not show the US & Canada

5. The Issues • Does the US need NATO any more? • Does NATO need the US? • Is there any common purpose left among the members? • What is the global military position of the US now, and in the next 10 years? • Can the US dominate the world without serious consequences?

6. Does the US Need NATO? • The short answer is “no” • The common purpose with Europe was during the Cold War—and that just went away • Since Europe has no comparable military force to the USA the US can dominate European foreign policy, which lacks the military hardware and smart weapons to counterbalance the USA

7. DEFENSE SPENDING AS A % OF GNP Compare NATO with the USA--and the biggest element in NATO is USA

8. Which was all established to fight This Compare this ! With this.

9. And, it is quality not quantity 10% of the weapons used in the 1991 Gulf War were “smart”. In Iraq, about 75%+ were. America has the market in these weapons.

10. Implications • If Europe wants its place in the world, it cannot do this in NATO—why? • NATO is dominated by the US and the US will keep it that way • Since the EU is not a state, it has no foreign policy or independent military force, thus it cannot play a counterbalancing role to the USA • The US sees no advantage in having the Europeans locked in to US foreign and military policy

11. And so…. • Frankly speaking, it is hard to see any role for NATO—they tend to “pick up the bits” after US actions • For instance, they have most of the “Peace-Keeping” follow up in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now they are being pressed to do the same in Iraq.

12. How does Europe see this? The US uses NATO only when it needs it, and regards it as less than serious. The US takes the big decisions unilaterally, such as bombing Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, or invading Iraq. Europe, maybe under the label of the UN, has to come in later and take over the daily running of what’s left.

13. But what about the huge numbers of US military personnel in Germany? They are Going Here and here Or even Here!

14. To Summarize So Far • US and Europe have serious differences, and the “Old Alliance” which arose from the Cold War, has passed its time • Let us remind ourselves of several recent crises in US foreign policy……………

15. Kosovo and Serbia • First many people would ask “What in (&^(‘s name are we doing there anyway—it is a European affair. That is what we thought, and the Europeans said they would handle it. • Eventually it got totally out of control, and “NATO” involved itself by attacking Yugoslavian forces. Now Kosovo is a UN Protectorate. So this was the US giving the Europeans a kick “you know where” through the medium of NATO. • But, what right has NATO to attack a UN member?

16. This is Kosovo It was mainly Albanian, but the Serbian minority suppressed the rights of the Albanians, and eventually drove them out in the thousands Mostly, they headed for the already unstable state of Macedonia.

17. It became a Human Rights Disaster • The US public became horrified by the lack of any action—so the US led NATO in. The Europeans could join in, or be left out in the cold.

18. Eventually NATO ended up bombing the Yugoslav capital: Belgrade.

19. Move now to 9/11/2001

20. The Response? The "US-led" Coalition 2001/2 With Russian support. Impossible without. • Immediately, NATO invoked “Clause V” • But, we did not consult with NATO—instead we put together our own coalition • Anything less like NATO would be hard to imagine—in effect NATO was sidelined

21. IRAQ: From Sideling NATO to Ignoring it Altogether • The United States raised the issue of Iraq saying that: • The 1991 Gulf War had ended with the surrender of Iraq and the agreement of very precise conditions—including weapons inspection • Since then the UN had, in effect, “been jerked around” by Saddam, and the US had held back from advancing on Baghdad because of this agreement. • It was time to call in the chips.

22. IRAQ: From Sideling to Ignoring • The US proposed a resolution to the UN Security Council—its highest body • Accept the Weapons Inspectors back on our terms, or else we shall invade. The “we” in this case being a UN force, as had happened in the Gulf War. • But, President Bush had no luck with this because “Old Europe” blocked him at the UN

23. IRAQ: From Sideling to Ignoring • France and Germany would not support the use of force. • Bush said without force this is pointless, as we have seen for the last 6 years • But France promised to veto any such proposition in the Security Council (effectively killing it) • Bush effectively killed them instead, withdrew the proposal and….

24. Coming; Ready or Not!

25. And NATO? • Two key members were blocking Bush • President Chirac of France • And Chancellor Schroeder of Germany • While the Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair, totally supported the invasion • 80% of the British Public did not support him

26. So where is NATO now? Spain Bulgaria A New US Coalition Organized for Iraq Portugal And some lesser-known states Poland Italy The Active, Fighting Coalition The USA and the UK And Then--the "support" of others... The "policing" support of... And then the political support of...

27. Finally Just as George Washington in the closing lines of his Farewell Address said they should • Europe is now split—at least for the moment—against itself (“Old Europe” as Rumsfeld called it) –so there is even less likelihood of a “European Force” • The US alliance with the British is unlikely to last, and has no political base in the UK • Germany, France and Belgium have suggested a European NATO, but it has not gone anywhere so far. • These coalitions, clearly, are going to come and go as needed.