The Nation.



Bush's Globalized NATO

By Sherle R. Schwenninger

This article appeared in the December 24, 2001 edition of The Nation.

December 6, 2001

The war in Afghanistan could become a defining event not just for the fight against terrorism but for NATO and US-European-Russian relations. Already the war has brought changes that just a few months ago would have been unimaginable. For the first time in its history, NATO has invoked Article 5 of the Washington treaty establishing the alliance--not to defend Europe, as was originally envisioned, but to support a US war in a region far from the European theater. And for the first time, NATO forces are operating from the territory of the former Soviet Union with Russia's blessing, and NATO officials are seriously considering giving Moscow a real voice in NATO affairs.

Yet underneath this unprecedented display of common purpose lie conflicting visions of NATO and of the American-European-Russian relationship, particularly as it connects with the troubled Arab and Islamic worlds. In both Europe and Russia, there is a palpable apprehension that Washington is using the war to advance a vision of NATO long favored by hawkish Democrats and Republicans--a more flexible NATO with a global mission controlled by Washington and acting in accordance with US foreign policy priorities.

If the Bush Administration has its way, this globalized NATO would entail a clearer division of labor between Europe and the United States: a NATO in which the Europeans assume more responsibility for post-cold war peacekeeping and nation-building in the Balkans while the United States is given a mandate to act outside the region against supposedly common enemies or on behalf of supposedly common interests in the Persian Gulf and East Asia. The United States would gain a freer hand for NATO military operations, while the Europeans would stand ready with money and personnel for peacekeeping and reconstruction. Washington would make the war, Europe would pay for the peace and Russia would politely stand aside, except when its cooperation was needed in the fight against terrorism and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Such a NATO would provide a degree of legitimacy for American power projection while reducing the overall financial burden for American foreign policy.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.

About Sherle R. Schwenninger

Sherle R. Schwenninger directs the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation. more...

Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» Campaign 08

VEEPSTAKES: One Last Clinton Scenario | It's probably Biden, but...
John Nichols

» The Notion

MSNBC Taps Rachel Maddow for New Show | A rising progressive star scores her own prime-time show.
Ari Melber

» Editor's Cut

A Fateful Crossroads for America | Faced with neocon policies that have led to a new cold war, will Obama show the courage to chart a new course?
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Beat

VEEPSTAKES: Feingold On Why He's Off the List | ... and the standards that should guide Obama's choice.
John Nichols

» The Dreyfuss Report

McCain, Circa 2003 | The man who killed thousands of Vietnamese in the '60s just couldn't wait to kill Iraqis.
Robert Dreyfuss

» ActNow!

From Fannie Lou Hamer to Barack Obama | Denver Public Library highlights how the civil rights movement changed American politics.
Peter Rothberg

» And Another Thing

Good-Bye, John Edwards | On policies and persons
Katha Pollitt

» Capitolism

Six Little Words | How Civil Rights Act could save America's labor movement
Christopher Hayes