Sixty years after its founding, NATO is in deep trouble, but its difficulties are the mark of its success.
In what might be described as a quest for coherence through
commodification, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has hired a
former Coca-Cola executive to foster greater understanding about its reason for
being.[1] But can an alliance
emulate a soft drink giant's success at reinvention? Not likely. Coke has been
creative--though not always successful--in its self-presentation, but no one
has ever doubted what it is: a beverage. NATO's problem is that its purpose is
no longer clear, even to its own members. In several key NATO states, few
people know what the alliance does, let alone how it serves their interests. And
who can blame them? Just try to define the present purpose of NATO as a
military alliance in a sentence, even a long sentence. It's not easy as it once
was: From its creation in 1949 until the end of 1991, everyone knew that NATO
existed to deter the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, and, failing that, to defend Western Europe.
As all serious Atlanticists recognize, however, that was not
NATO's only purpose. NATO was a military alliance on paper, but a political
arrangement in everyone's minds. As its first Secretary General Lord Ismay
famously quipped, NATO was created not just to "keep the Russians out" but also
to keep "the Germans down, and the Americans in." In other words, it was
designed to prevent a repetition of mistakes made after World War I: avert
another round of German hypernationalist recidivism, and another American
relapse into isolationism. Statesmen are always busy solving the last postwar
endgame no less than generals are always busy preparing to fight the last war.
Still, it worked. NATO was a critical element in a
multi-pronged strategy to maintain peace and security in Europe.
Today, few Europeans are worried that even a reunited Germany will
start another world war, and few expect another American relapse into
isolationism (which should not be confused with some retrenchment in what is
still essentially an internationalist strategy). The question going forward,
however, is whether NATO still has a useful role in any of these three areas:
preventing unwanted Russian influence, taming Germany's
historical demons and keeping U.S.
power attached to both European security and the broader American interests in
peace and stability on the continent.
[1] Stephen
Caste, "NATO Hires a Coke Executive to Retool Its Brand", New York Times, July 16, 2008.
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.
Your tax-deductible gift will help bring promising new voices and ideas into our nation's discourse, and help shape the future of vital public policies.
Join the Conversation
Please log in below through Disqus, Twitter or Facebook to participate in the conversation. Your email address, which is required for a Disqus account, will not be publicly displayed. If you sign in with Twitter or Facebook, you have the option of publishing your comments in those streams as well.