NATO Cohesion from Afghanistan to Iraq

  • Christian Tuschhoff

Abstract

NATO’s decision to invoke its mutual defense clause (Article 5 of the Washington Treaty) after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon surprised the world. No one expected that the NATO Alliance would take such a bold step without extensive debate among the allies, national governments, political parties and the public. Yet, it took the North Atlantic Council (NAC) meeting at the level of Permanent Representatives (not ministers) only two meetings and a few hours to determine that the attack on the United States was an attack on all of the NATO allies, provided that further evidence proved it was an attack from abroad. This step came at a time when most experts had lost faith in the value of the Alliance in light of the Kosovo experience, during which it seemed more sensible to abandon NATO in favor of other security institutions, such as the European Union or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), institutions that appeared to be geared more towards the post-Cold War security environment. At a time when states had every reason to run for the exit because they risked becoming the next terrorist target, governments decided to honor the treaty commitments that they had agreed to under very different circumstances and expectations. This decision is strong evidence of the endurance, cohesion and vitality of the Alliance. Despite academic predictions that its years are numbered, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization persists and adapts.2 It has been argued, however, that since the 12 September 2001 decision, NATO has appeared to be marginalized because the United States did not ask for substantial support nor did NATO substantially contribute to the war effort.3

Keywords

Europe Assure Turkey Defend Stake 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    R. Wolf, ‘Was halt siegreiche Verbündete zusammen? Machtpolitische, institutionelle und innenpolitische Faktoren im Vergleich,’ Zeits- chrift fur internationale Beziehungen, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2000), 33–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Reinhard Wolf, Partnerschaft oder Rivalität? (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001)Google Scholar
  3. G. Hellmann and R. Wolf, ‘Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO,’ Security Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1993), 3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. G. Hellmann and R. Wolf, ‘Wider die schleichende Erosion der NATO. Der Fortbestand des westlichen Bünd- nisses ist nicht selbstverstandlich’ in W. Link, E. Schuett-Wetschky and G. Schwan, eds, Jahrbuch fär Politik 1993, Halbband 2 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993), pp. 285–314Google Scholar
  5. J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the cold war’, pp. 78–129 in M. E. Brown, S. Lynn-Jonnes and S. E. Miller, eds, The perils of Anarchy. Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1995)Google Scholar
  6. C. A. Wallander, ‘Institutional Assets and Adaptability. NATO after the Cold War,’ International Organisation, Vol. 54, No. 4 (2000) 705–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. C. Tuschhoff, ‘Alliance Cohesion and Peaceful Change in the NATO,’ pp. 140–61 in H. Haftendorn, R. O. Keohane and C. A. Wallander, eds, Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  8. D. Schuemer, ‘Getrennt Abmarschieren: Europa in der neuen Weltordnung,’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 December 2001) 43Google Scholar
  9. M. Inacker, ‘Grosse Worte, kleine Muenze,’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (3 February 2002) 3.Google Scholar
  10. Lothar Ruehl, ‘Der Krieg gegen den Terror droht zu zersplittern’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 February 2002) 10Google Scholar
  11. K-D. Frankenberger, ‘Selbst- berauschung und Larmoyanz.’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Zeitgeschehen. (12 February 2002) 10.Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    M. Kaminski, P. Hofheinz etal., ‘NATO allies back Bush in war on terrorist “evil”’, Wall Street Journal Europe (13 September 2001), UK1Google Scholar
  13. P. H. Gordon, ‘NATO after September 11,’ Survival, Vol. 43, No. 4 (2001–02) 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    J. Kitfield, ‘NATO Is Too Busy to Be Irrelevant’, National Journal (9 February 2002).Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    S. Daley, ‘NATO, though supportive, has little to offer militarily,’ New York Times (20 September 2001) B5.Google Scholar
  16. 12.
    G. Baker. ‘NATO is not Dead but Missing in Action’. Financial Times (21 November 2002) 21Google Scholar
  17. Judy Dempsey, ‘If Bush does not make clear that NATO can be involved in critical issues, the Alliance will atrophy’. Financial Times (20 November 2002) 19.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    L. G. Michael, ‘NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule?’ Strategic Forum, No. 202 (Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University: August 2003) 1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Tuschhoff

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations