Introduction

Abstract

The debate over who pays for what among NATO allies is hardly new. The parameters of what has become known as the burdensharing debate were established during the Great Debate in the Senate in the early 1950s and formalized during the Mansfield debates of the early 1970s. The debate is highly politicized, some may argue entirely politicized, and the economic data is often manipulated to suit the outlook of the proponent. The data itself may be incidental to the real issue, which has more to do with the direction of NATO’s strategy and force levels and the role of the US in the defence of the Alliance. This study examines and critiques the methodological criteria used to assess the ‘burden’ and attempts to draw some general lessons for Alliance management. The book also aims to illustrate that although the burdensharing debate is ostensibly about measuring financial burdens within the Alliance, the debate is far more complex. For this reason ‘burden’ has been considered from three viewpoints: first, the purely financial measurements which is what is normally meant and, second, the notion of burden has been considered in relation to responsibility sharing in connection with decision-making powers and, lastly, in relation to geographical burdens or the area over which financial and political burdens are spread.