#12
Krasnaya Zvezda
No. 4
2002
NATO: MID-LIFE CRISIS
By Yuri PANKOV

It has become more difficult for the USA to satisfy its NATO allies, who demand that bombing strikes should be accurate, treaties fulfilled scrupulously and enlargement substantiated. The slightest displeasure leads to scandals and even a kind of fallout. Well, these are the signs of a mid-life crisis. Fifty- three years after the establishment of the bloc, Europeans suddenly felt so independent as to question the decisions of the Big Brother and even attempt to create security structures alternative to NATO.

Yugoslav Lesson

The first alarm was sounded during the bombing of Yugoslavia, when Europeans openly hinted that they are dissatisfied with the Americans ignoring the opinion of the allies and manipulating with mechanisms of making concrete decisions. The direct prerequisite for this was the progress of the operation. Instead of choosing military targets, the Pentagon bombed peaceful cities and chemical plants. It became apparent that the US generals holding key posts in the NATO hierarchy did not care at all about a potential European ecological catastrophe or humanitarian crisis with thousands of refugees.

As a result, the aggression against Yugoslavia, which was a NATO attempt to assume the role of a global punishing sword from beginning to end, not only undermined the bloc psychologically but also split it ideologically. During the April 1999 jubilee NATO summit in Washington France and Germany demonstrated their dislike of the NATO policeman uniform, saying that they would not support the idea of holding Kosovo-like operations without a UN Security Council mandate. The Americans tried to bring everyone to heel, threatening to leave the Balkans in this case and leave Europe face to face with their brainchild - Albanian extremism. This unexpected demarche shocked Europeans but they soon found an adequate answer after a period of embarrassment. They decided to create their own armed forces for the settlement of regional crises.

European Alternative to NATO

First Paris initiated the creation of a 60,000-strong "European army." Then the EU proclaimed, after years of vacillation, a policy of not only economic and political but also military integration. This was when Washington became worried. It proclaimed that Europeans should have long strengthened their military machine through a more fair distribution of the burden of responsibility in NATO. But the time for compromise was lost. The USA wants butter, money for the butter and the dairyman's daughter to boot, said Paris ironically about Washington's attempt to preserve the status quo.

Americans panicked only when the "European army" was created on paper, meaning the official decision to create an instrument of military interference that would be independent of NATO. Although the level of independence of the "European army" was still a moot question, Washington was notified that the top NATO generals would not have the automatic right to attend the sessions of the planning committee of the future EU rapid deployment forces. This meant that the European army would have decision-making and implementation structures independent of NATO. Washington is hardly fooled by the phrase "independent of NATO." It actually means "independent of the USA," because it was the European NATO members who initiated the "European army." Aesopian language is playing a special role in NATO. For example, the phrase "the strengthening of the European component of NATO" has come to mean the creation of the EU military potential. The phrase "in coordination with NATO" means that the bloc's headquarters will be only notified of decisions made in the European defence structures.

The Paris-Berlin-London triangle has become the driving force of European integration. It is true that Tony Blair is fighting hard to resist the pressure of British Conservatives, who accuse his Labour government of undermining NATO and endangering the Britain-US strategic alliance. No wonder the Americans are working on Britain as best they can, enticing and threatening it. For example, they threatened to deprive Britain of intelligence information unless London speaks up against the Europeans' plans.

The USA dangled a carrot in front of Britain's nose by speeding up the signing of blocks of agreements with Britain and Germany on expanding the mutual export of military technologies and weapons. Meanwhile, US corporations began to more actively invest in European defence consortiums, although the US law says that all defence technologies and products must be created and produced on US territory.

Change of Strategy

The USA knows very well that Europeans do not want to give up their "trans-Atlantic safety belt" but is worried that they are speaking about a "safety belt" and not the traditional crutch, which the Americans have grown accustomed to using as a big stick.

Besides, the USA knows that the role of such a "safety belt" is becoming ephemeral because the threat against which NATO was created is no more. And the ability of adjusting the bloc to the fulfilment of other tasks is questionable, because it is not very easy to convince the allies that US tank corps and bomber squadrons must be deployed in Europe to combat small groups of terrorists and drug merchants. And yet the USA is doing the best it can in this situation. For example, immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the USA the White House announced the need to apply Article 5 of the Washington treaty on collective defence.

The situation seems completely transparent to Europeans, as proved by the first ever October session of the EU defence ministers, who had previously gathered only at NATO forums. In this case Europeans not only confirmed their plan of creating joint defence structures but also decided to coordinate the efforts of their countries in the struggle against terrorism. In point of fact, these decisions were a kind of reply to Washington, which had proclaimed the need to employ NATO mechanisms in the counter-terror operation. Here is the essence of the European reply to the USA: yes, we will fight terrorism and will not neglect our allied obligations, but Europe will form a joint front in this struggle and will not allow itself to be manipulated as happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia.

This amounts to a serious claim to Europe's intention to speak with the USA in one voice and from a common stand on all other issues within the NATO framework.

Until recently, the USA has been trying to enhance its reputation by using Russia to scare Europe. At least observers say that this was the goal of a statement made by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who said that Russia continued to present a threat to the West because of its nuclear status. This appears to be the most serious argument in favour of a US-Europe friendship in the face of the Russian scare, simply because there are no other arguments. Washington's goal is to make the allies swallow the bait. The sleigh of hands, a technology that the USA can use expertly, will do the rest. One proof of this is the inclusion in the NATO plans of large-scale March 2002 exercises that provide for training in repelling... a Russian aggression.

Washington links its plans in this sphere with the creation of an NMD system. The implementation of the NMD plans jointly with Europeans is a good chance to rally the vacillating allies under the US banner and give NATO a new lease on life. Europeans would not be able to create a similar system independently. So if they allow themselves to be convinced of the usefulness of NMD, they will be hooked by Washington. So far Europe has been acting very maturely because the European discord over NMD means nothing other than an adequate answer to the US question. They seem to be saying: we are not against the USA but this does not mean that we will always follow it with our eyes closed. The USA and Europe even made diametrically opposite conclusions from their interpretation of the September 11 tragedy in relation to NMD. The Americans presented the tragedy as a proof of the need for the nuclear missile umbrella, while Europeans saw it as one more proof of the questionable nature of pro-NMD arguments.

And here is the last US appeal to the mercantile European mind: why spend so much on defence if "the good Americans" have always provided the money and are ready to continue doing this in the future? A strong argument, indeed, the more so for the small countries which will have to make a much larger contribution to the "European army" while trying to uphold their interests in dialogue with, say, Germany or France.

Paper Tiger

But the main US argument is that NATO is a well-oiled machine while the "European army" is nothing more than a paper tiger. Besides, nobody can guarantee, say the Americans, that the implementation of European plans would not turn the paper tiger into a clumsy tortoise.

The Americans are largely right, though, for the European army exists only on paper. In case of Britain this means that the units that it is prepared - on paper - to dispatch to the European army are already operating as part of NATO forces in, say, Kosovo. This raises the obvious question: who will be their master, NATO or Europe?

The core of the European army is to be created this winter and European giants - Britain, France, Germany and Italy - have proclaimed readiness to detail their units to it. However, the main thing is not that Europeans are theoretically ready to replace NATO but that they have recently proclaimed readiness to do this in practice - by replacing US troops in Kosovo with European servicemen.

On the other hand, it would be premature and not quite correct to wonder if the Americans will preserve NATO. The thing is that the Americans do not need NATO as such. They need an obedient NATO and they are prepared to pay for such tame bloc. The exact amount of payment is open to bargaining. At the same time, Washington categorically refuses to admit that it is impossible to preserve the NATO of old. For its time, just as the time of bloc confrontation, is long past.

BACK TO THE TOP    #189 CONTENTS