Differences between US and NATO Widen: Opinion

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, November 21, 2002

Differences between US and NATO Widen: Opinion

The Summit of various countries of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), scheduled to be held in Prague on December 20, will accept new members and discuss NATO's new tasks and positioning.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

The Summit of various countries of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), scheduled to be held in Prague on December 20, will accept new members and discuss NATO's new tasks and positioning.

Major changes have taken place in the world political and security environment after the conclusion of the Cold War. NATO, as a Cold-war product, has in recent years always been faced with the choice of future development and its own re-positioning. Differences occurred between NATO European allies and the United States over a series of questions related to concepts and values. After the "September 11" incident, the United States applied more visible pressure on NATO, thus sharpening contradictions between the two.

Since this summer, when world opinion and eyes were turned to see whether the United States would launch war against Iraq, busy but unnoticeable diplomatic activities have been carried out in Europe.

NATO defense ministers held a meeting in Warsaw in September this year to discuss NATO's military future. US defense secretary attended the conference, bringing with him the Bush administration's plan trying to propel NATO reform. The said US plan mainly covers: first, speed up the process of NATO's eastward expansion. Second, demand NATO to carry out military reform, so that the latter can make quicker reaction to world crisis and make its military forces reach to the whole world and to adopt "pre-emptive strike" strategy when necessary. Third, persuade NATO to support the United States in more complicated and arduous anti-terrorist war in the future.

On the whole, NATO approved of the American plan. If NATO accepted the US plan at the Prague Summit, then, it would be an important mark in the process of NATO history. On the one hand, it would be the largest structural expansion since NATO was founded in 1949. Seven new members (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovak and Slovenia) will join the organization. This implies that 40 million people will be put under NATO's security protective umbrella. The present expansion, plus the accession of Czech, Hungary and Poland, will make NATO very different from what it was at the time of the conclusion of the Cold War, and the territory of NATO countries will extend from the coast of the Baltic west of Russia to the Black Sea on the southeast wing of Europe. The consensus on accepting the seven countries into NATO is the result of the "September 11" terrorist attacks and the concrete push by the US government. Of course, Russia's sudden change in its diplomatic line on the question of NATO also plays an important role. On the other hand, it implies that this security alliance mechanism of NATO will undergo a major organizational change and a most profound structural transformation. NATO's participation in the global counter-terrorism action will further break the rules this organization follows in the scope of its geographical activities.

However, major changes have taken place in the world political and security environment after the conclusion of the Cold War. NATO, as a product of the Cold War, has always been faced with the choice of future development and re-positioning in recent years. Differences have occurred between NATO European allies and the United States on a series of questions in concepts and values. After the "September 11" incident, the United States brought more noticeable pressure to bear upon NATO, thus sharpening the contradictions between the two sides.

Firstly, there exists divergence between NATO and the United States on the question of war

Many European countries do not favor the American use of force against Iraq and its "regime-changing" policy. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany openly criticized US policy toward Iraq during domestic election, thus plunging US-German relations into a slump after the Cold War. Germany had all along been regarded as one of US trustworthy allies. The Bush administration still feels uneasy about Germany's criticisms. France also disagrees with the US planned attack on Iraq. Some European opinion expressed objection to US "pre-emptive strike" strategy, thinking that it is only a kind of tactic choice, and there is no need to write it into the report of the national security strategy. Furthermore, the way of using pre-emptive strike against others also violates international conventions and the UN Charter.

Secondly, military gap between NATO and the United States widens

The United States has clearly told NATO that the "September 11" terrorist attack has changed the United States. In an effort to cope with global terrorist threat, the Bush administration has conducted drastic reform in the aspects of national security strategy, military thinking and government organization. In the opinion of the United States, if America has enhanced its military quick reaction capability, while other NATO countries do not carry out corresponding military reform, then, the resultant unbalance will cause the United States to bear greater risk in coping with world crisis. During the Kosovo war in 1999, the United States criticized NATO for lack of a crisis-control mechanism and lack of a rational commanding structure and quick reaction ability. Now the United States threatens that if NATO does not coordinate with the United States and does not conduct correspondent conceptual and structural reforms, the United States would put aside NATO and act independently.

However, economically, many NATO countries can hardly put in huge amounts of money to increase military quick reaction capability. The standard set by NATO for a long time to come is: The member states must use 3 percent of GNP (gross national product) in national defense. At present, only the United States and some individual countries surpass this standard. Quite a number of other allies can only meet the NATO-set lowest standard for membership: putting in 2 percent of GDP for national defense.

Thirdly, US-NATO differences also find expression on the question regarding the role of NATO

Since NATO is unable to possess sophisticated communication technology similar to that of the United States, guidance precision weapon system and all-weather operational capacity, it is hard for NATO to effectively fight shoulder to shoulder with US troops. After the occurrence of the "September 11" event, NATO immediately and for the first time quoted Article 5 of NATO convention on collective defense and was ready to extend aid to the United States. However, the United States refused to allow NATO to play its role in the Afghanistan War, it only allowed Britain to participate in military actions. America's reason was that the United States wanted to avoid the possibility that the combined forces formed as a result of NATO's participation in military actions would cause US war plan to become more complicated. The United States did not want NATO to take a hand in the said war, this matter greatly dampened NATO's early enthusiasm in supporting US counter-terrorism struggle. One phenomenon worth noticing is that since the Kosovo War, an unwritten war division of labor seemed to have been formed between the United States and NATO: the United States carried out technical bombing and violence damage to the pre-war targets and facilities, at this stage, due to the absence of fighters' direct mutual contact, the United States would not sustain huge war casualties, the NATO allies are needed to join in the peace-keeping actions in the later stage of the war and in the ensuing period, the situation in this stage often became more complicated, ground forces were needed to enter the war zone and peace-keeping areas, so risk of war casualties increased noticeably. In addition, the European Union has been in recent years seeking to expand its own members and has searched for building its European defense structure in order to rival the security alliance, NATO. All these have caused NATO itself to face crisis.

Fourthly, the United States and NATO are divided on the question whether or not to continue eastward expansion

Soon after the conclusion of the Cold War, the US decision-makers proposed that NATO carry out eastward expansion, the standard for accepting new members includes the democratic structure, the free market economy and the human rights situation. In addition, new members must undertake NATO's responsibilities. For instance, they should have military capacity so as to make contribution to NATO's collective defense, extend humanitarian aid as well as take up international peace-keeping mission. After intense debate, US Senate passed a resolution in 1998, approving the accession of Poland, Hungary and Czech to NATO. However, some US Congressmen now are disappointed at the behavior of the three countries which, after joining NATO, have slowed down, instead of speeding up, the process of domestic reforms. Some US opinions oppose NATO's rapid eastward expansion, their worries are: how large economic expense and price will the United States bear on this issue? What abilities do these new members have? Is their identification in agreement with that of the West?

The NATO Summit held in Prague on November 20, 2002 was the first gathering of the heads of state of various NATO allies that took place after the "September 11" incident. People will wait and see where NATO-US relations will go.

By People's Daily Online

Questions?Comments? Click here

NATO to Achieve Strategic Transformation at Prague Summit

NATO Chief: Alliance will Support US Action on Iraq

US President Urges NATO to Help Disarm Iraq

China Pushes Use of Ethanol as Fuel ( 7 Messages)

Eight Opportunities before China Within Upcoming 20 Years ( 2 Messages)

Sino-US Relations Improve Despite Neo-realism ( 9 Messages)

Cabbage Tells Changes of Beijingers' Life ( 4 Messages)

Advanced Real-time Simulation Computer Passes Appraisal in Central China ( 2 Messages)