• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Obama Administration's Vision for the Future of NATO

    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.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to The Obama Administration's Vision for the Future of NATO

    1. Sarwar A. Kashmeri, says:

      Unfortunately there is no appetite for more spending on defense in Europe. Nor is there likely to be as clear cut a new threat perception as this article would like to see. NATO is a central part of the transatlantic alliance. But, it is now in danger of fading. That would be "…like staring into the abyss", as a senior U..S. defense official said recently. It must not be allowed to happen.

      The Obama foreign policy/Security team–Clinton, Gates, Jones–has it exactly right. There needs to be an immediate move to build EU/ESDP – NATO relations. It is the only way forward.

    2. Sally McNamara Sally McNamara says:

      Interesting argument that is entirely self-defeating: NATO is in danger of fading because defense spending is too low in Europe; so let’s divest those meager resources further by creating a second set of demands on a singular set of resources. The ESDP has not seen any additional resources in 10 years, and neither will it in the next 10. It is a competitor to NATO, which has explicitly ruled out being a civilian complement to NATO. There are no new men and no new monies for CSDP as it is now known and NATO can only be undermined further. See here for a full explanation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2053.cf

    3. Pingback: The Obama Administration's Vision for the Future of NATO | The … : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies

    4. Pingback: The Greatest Threat to the Future of the (NATO) Alliance | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.