NATO is dying. (Whitney 2008). Discuss

Introduction

On 4th of April 1949 in Washingon, D.C. NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created as a way to ensure the defense of its members against aggression. The first members of the alliance were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, UK, which already had signed the Treaty of Brussels on 17th of March 1948, USA, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Denmark and Iceland. Later in 1952 Greece and Turkey were accepted in the alliance and in 1955 West Germany also became a member of NATO. Indeed, the acceptance of West Germany and the refusal the Soviet Union also to be accepted in NATO leaded it to response with signing the Warsaw Pact on 9th of May 1955. The Cold War between these two alliances lasted until 1989 when USSR collapsed and the dissolution of Warsaw Pact in 1991. By the end of 1991 NATO was no longer threatened and lost its main reason for existing and if NATO has to perform like other military alliances in history it would have to disappear soon after the collapse of its main adversary. But NATO has faced the new reality of a changing world and new threats. Moreover, NATO accepted new members – East Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and later Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. Further Croatia and Albania joined NATO in 2009. (Cornish, 1997)
Despite the changes and the new duties which were undertaken by NATO a number of authors were and still are forecasting the collapse of the Alliance. According to Nick Witney, who is a former Chief Executive of the European Defense Agency and now is a senior policy fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations, NATO is dying. In order to discuss his thesis this work will be divided in two parts – in the first one the reasons for the eventual death of NATO, stated not only from Nick Whitney but also from other authors, will be examined and in the second part the motives why the alliance will remain to exists will be investigated. This paper will conclude with evaluation of both opinions and general comments on the future of NATO. (Witney, 2009)

On “The death of NATO” by Nick Witney

Mr. Witney states similar opinion to Cornish`s one that NATO should have disappeared when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact evaporated because its job was done, but the Balkan crisis and September the 11th kept it alive. Despite this he argues that NATO is not able anymore to provide basis for transatlantic security relationship under the rule of USA as the initial idea of the alliance was to keep Russians away and the US in. The framework of the US leadership and the European obeisance is not longer appropriate and the alliance is seen as a provider of the US policy of global war on terror and opposing Russia and the Islamic world. Mr. Witney also sees the Alliance as a way European states to avoid their responsibility for the global security. All the ideas of an improved NATO – EU partnership failed to achieve the goal and Afghanistan made clear the problem of the Alliance to generate the needed forces and financial resources. The crisis between the members of the alliance is clear and the unbalanced relationship can not continue in the future. He states that NATO can exist another decade or two but the future forecast is clearly that is no light at the end of the tunnel. The efforts of rejuvenation of NATO and the talks of an improved NATO-EU partnership are useless. The real problem, says Mr. Witney, is the relations between the US and European countries, 21 of which belong to both organizations and the disagreements between them is hardly to be solved. The 1990`s concept of a “European Defense Identity” inside the Alliance proved to be unviable and only together Europeans can be effective contributors to global security or to achieve robust transatlantic security partnership states Mr. Witney. He continues that the US should encourage the EU to grow its global