50 Years of NATO as History: Perspectives on the Tasks Ahead
These days, we are all aware that circumstances affect the way of thinking, about the past, present and future of NATO. The title of this book reflects the approach prevailing in the aftermath of the Madrid summit (July 1997). The Madrid summit concluded a development that began in 1990 and concentrated on new missions, new strategy, new structures and new members. Having overcome its adversary and sustained the ‘security of the West’, NATO was now confident in its ability to make headway as a “force for good”, assuming responsibility for ‘Securing Peace in and for Europe’.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Hall Gardner, Dangerous Crossroads. Europe, Russia and the Future of NATO (Westport: Praeger, 1997) p. 218; Steven L. Rearden, NATO’s Evolving Strategic Concept’, in S. Victor Papacosma and Pierre-Henri Laurent (eds.), NATO and the European Union. Confronting the Challenges of European Security and Enlargement, (Lyman L. Lemnitzer Center for NATO and European Union Studies, Kent State University, 1999), pp. 21– 4.Google Scholar
- 5.Sean Kay, NATO and the Future of European Security (Lanham: Row-man & Littlefield Publishers, 1998), p. 155.Google Scholar
- 6.Frédéric Bozo, Where Does the Atlantic Alliance Stand? The Improbable Partnership (Paris: les notes de l’ifri no. 6 bis, 1999), p. 5.Google Scholar
- 7.Francois Duchene, Jean Monnet. The First Statesman of Interdependence, (New York, 1994).Google Scholar
- 8.Ted Galen Carpenter, ‘Competing Agendas: America, Europe, and a Troubled NATO Partnership’, in id. (ed.), NATO at 40: Confronting a Changing World (Cato Institute, Lexington Book, 1990), pp. 38–9. See the articles of Michael Wheeler, Edward Drea and Thomas-Durell Young in this book.Google Scholar
- 9.Wolfram F. Hanrieder, The FRG and NATO: Between Security Dependence and Security Partnership’, in Emil J. Kirchner and James Sperling (eds.), The Federal Republic of Germany and NATO: 40 Years After (London: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 201–3, 207–210.Google Scholar
- 11.Pierre Melandri,’The Troubled Friendship: France and the United States, 1945–1989’, in Geir Lundestad (ed.), No End to Alliance: The United States and Western Europe: Past, Present and Future (London: Macmillan, 1998), p. 122.Google Scholar
- 28.Ted Galen Carpenter, ‘Strategic Evasions’, in id. and Barbara Conry (eds.), NATO Enlargement: Illusions and Reality (Cato Institute, 1998), p. 27.Google Scholar
- 33.Gustav Schmidt, ‘Kanada, die Bundesrepublik und “Europäische Sicherheit’” 1958 – 1969’, in Guido Müller (ed.), Internationale Beziehungen im 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), pp. 313–332.Google Scholar
- 38.Stephen A. Kocs, Autonomy or power?: The Franco-German relationship and Europe’s strategic choices, 1955–1995 (Westport: Praeger, 1995) 200–4. These notions became standard in NATO’s public statements throughout the 1990s, lately in the 1999 Washington Summit declaration on the new strategic concept; see my Introduction to part V of this book and Robert P. Grant’s article in the same section.Google Scholar
- 39.Stephen A. Cambone, ‘PFP, CJTF and NATO Expansion: A View from Washington’, in Eric Remacle and Reimund Seidelmann (ed.), Pan-European Security Redefined (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1998), p. 133; Paul Cornish, Partnership in Crisis: The US, Europe and the Fall and Rise of NATO (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1997), pp. 72–78.Google Scholar