Why NATO is Still Relevant
- PDF / 167,000 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 80 Downloads / 208 Views
Why NATO is Still Relevant Christian Tuschhoff Political Science Department, Emory University, 113A Tarbutton Hall, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
In this article, I argue that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can still play a useful role in providing security to its members after September 11. The alliance had been prepared for terrorist attacks politically and militarily and continues to adjust to a new security environment. As a consequence, it acted swiftly and decisively in response to September 11. In addition, NATO generated two important ‘second image reversed’ effects. First, its defense planning system coordinated and implemented common military goals and ensured interoperability among national forces. Second, its decisions changed the political discourse in member states. Using the example of Germany — currently the most reluctant ally of the US — I show that the discourse changed from (self) interest to reputation after NATO invoked Article 5. The German discourse shifted back to (self) interest on the issue of war against Iraq because the Bush administration chose to bypass NATO to ensure allied cooperation. International Politics (2003) 40, 101–120. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800007 Keywords: second image reversed; analysis; NATO; defense planning; Germany; discourse analysis
Introduction NATO’s decision to invoke the mutual defense clause (Article 5 of the Washington Treaty) after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon surprised the world.1 No one expected the Alliance would take such a bold step without extensive debate among 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 allies, provided that further evidence proved it was an attack from abroad.2 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 (EU) or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), institutions geared more toward the post-Cold War security environment. At a time when states had every reason to run for the exit because
Christian Tuschhoff Why NATO is Still Relevant
102
they risked becoming the next terrorist target, NATO governments decided to honor their treaty commitments to which they had agreed under very different circumstances and expectations. This decision is strong evidence for the endurance and vitality of the Alliance. Despite academic predictions that its years are numbered, NATO persists and adapts (Hellmann and Wolf, 1993a, b; Mearsheimer, 1995; Waltz, 1995; Tuschhoff, 1999; Wallander, 2000; Wolf, 2000b, 2001). Further, it has been argued that since the September 12 decision, NATO appeared to be marginalized because the U
Data Loading...
