#ElPerúQueQueremos

¿ESTA LA OTAN ( NATO) OBSOLETA ?

COMO ADUCE EL PRESIDENTE DONALD TRUMP 

Publicado: 2017-01-21

Por : Dennis Falvy

La Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) –en inglés: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), y en francés: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)–, también denominada Alianza del Atlántico, Alianza del Atlántico Norte o Alianza Atlántica, es una alianza militar intergubernamental basada en el Tratado del Atlántico Norte o Tratado de Washington firmado el 4 de abril de 1949. La organización constituye un sistema de defensa colectiva, en la cual los Estados miembros acuerdan defender a cualquiera de sus miembros si son atacados por una facción externa. El cuartel general de la OTAN se encuentra en Bruselas, Bélgica, uno de los 28 Estados miembros de la organización que se extiende por Norteamérica y Europa. Las últimas incorporaciones fueron Albania y Croacia, en abril de 2009. Además, hay 22 países que colaboran con la OTAN dentro del programa Asociación para la Paz, con otros 15 países involucrados en programas de diálogo. El gasto militar combinado de todos los países miembros de la OTAN supera el 70 % del gasto militar mundial.

En sus primeros años, la OTAN no era mucho más que una asociación política. Sin embargo, la Guerra de Corea hizo que se planteara una coalición permanente, y desde entonces se creó una nueva estructura militar bajo la dirección de los comandantes de Estados Unidos. El curso de la Guerra Fría llevó a las naciones rivales a crear el Pacto de Varsovia, que se formó en 1955. Siempre se han manifestado dudas sobre la alianza europeo-norteamericana ante una invasión soviética, desacuerdos que se plasmaron con la creación por parte de Francia de la fuerza de choque nuclear, y finalmente con su retirada de la alianza en 1966.

Después de la caída del Muro de Berlín en 1989, la organización intervino dentro de la Guerra de Yugoslavia, lo que se convirtió en la primera intervención conjunta de la OTAN, y también después en 1999. Políticamente la organización ha ido mejorando sus relaciones con los antiguos miembros del Bloque del Este, que culminaron al incorporarse varios miembros del Pacto de Varsovia entre 1999 y 2004. En septiembre de 2001 ha sido la única ocasión en que un país miembro, Estados Unidos, ha invocado el Artículo 5 del tratado reivindicando la ayuda en su defensa. A partir de entonces los países miembros colaboraron con los Estados Unidos en la Guerra de Afganistán y de Irak. El artículo 4 del tratado prevé llamar a consulta a los países miembros y ha sido convocado cuatro veces, tres de ellas por Turquía, la primera por la Guerra de Irak y las dos restantes por ataques recibidos durante la Guerra Civil Siria, la cuarta ha sido invocado por Polonia durante la Crisis de Crimea de 2014, debido a la movilización de tropas rusas en la frontera polaca con Kaliningrado y las maniobras rusas en el mar Báltico.

ORIGEN DE LA OTAN

En 1949, en plena posguerra de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, en Occidente se veía con preocupación la política expansionista que estaba siguiendo la Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas. Era evidente que la ONU no podría ser capaz por sí sola de mantener la estabilidad en el mundo, ya que los intereses de Estados Unidos conllevaron numerosos vetos soviéticos. La aparición de gobiernos comunistas en Europa Central y Oriental por influencia soviética aumentaban la presión en Europa Occidental. Entre 1947 y 1949, una serie de sucesos, más dramáticos por el hecho de la reciente marcha de las tropas estadounidenses y canadienses que aún se encontraban en Europa desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, marcaron el punto más alto en la tensión que se estaba experimentando. Estos sucesos fueron amenazas a la soberanía de Noruega, Grecia, Turquía y Checoslovaquia, entre otros, donde el golpe de Praga fue interpretado como un ataque directo a los intereses europeos. Además, el Bloqueo de Berlín, que empezó en abril de 1948, empeoró la situación para los países antes mencionados.

La necesidad de una asociación de países cada vez era más manifiesta, de forma que en marzo de 1948, Francia, Bélgica, Países Bajos, Luxemburgo y el Reino Unido firmaron el Tratado de Bruselas, con el que creaban una alianza militar, la Unión Europea Occidental.

Ante la creciente expansión socialista, se decidió crear una alianza defensiva más amplia que la anterior Unión Europea Occidental, por lo que se llevaron a cabo negociaciones entre Estados Unidos, Canadá y la Alianza Atlántica, a las que se decidió invitar a Dinamarca, Islandia, Italia, Noruega y Portugal. Las negociaciones giraron en torno a la creación de una alianza militar que tuviese una base en el artículo 51 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas, y tuvieron como resultado la firma del Tratado de Washington, el 4 de abril de 1949, por la que se establecían las bases de la creación la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte.

Una de las dificultades surgidas durante las negociaciones estuvieron relacionadas con la integración de Estados Unidos en la Organización. Los países europeos, devastados después de la guerra, estaban interesados en aliarse con Estados Unidos para así asegurarse una defensa eficaz, pero en Estados Unidos no se compartía esta voluntad. Sin embargo, el golpe de Praga, el 12 de marzo de 1948 y el bloqueo de Berlín en 1949 aumentaron la reivindicación por parte de los europeos, especialmente de Francia, de la creación de una alianza militar con Estados Unidos: en secreto, en el Reino Unido se firmó un acuerdo, llamado Pentagon Paper[cita requerida], con el que se establecía un esbozo de como debía ser una alianza en el Atlántico Norte.

El último elemento a tener en cuenta en el proceso de integración de Estados Unidos pasó por la necesidad de sortear la dificultad que suponía la prohibición por parte de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos de aliarse militarmente en tiempos de paz. El senador Vandenberg promovió la votación de la Resolución 239, que el 11 de junio de 1948 dio luz verde a la unión de Estados Unidos a la Alianza. Bajo petición del Senado de Estados Unidos, se hizo constar en el tratado de constitución de la alianza (artículo 5) que las medidas a tomar en caso de agresión a algún país miembro fuesen resultado de la libre elección de cada país. El Senado quería mantener así el poder de elección del Congreso en materia militar.

Después de la constitución de la OTAN, nuevos países se fueron adhiriendo a ella. En 1952 se unieron los dos primeros, Reino de Grecia y Turquía. La República Federal de Alemania accedió en 1955 y, en 1982, España también firmó el Tratado. La República Checa, Hungría y Polonia se convirtieron en miembros en 1999. En 2004 accedieron Bulgaria, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia, Estonia, Letonia, Lituania y Rumanía. Croacia y Albania lo hicieron en 2009. Actualmente han sido invitados y son aspirantes a la adhesión Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Montenegro y la República de Macedonia.

COMIENZOS

CONFERENCIA DE LA OTAN EN PARÍS EN MAYO DE 1955.

TEÓRICAMENTE DESTINADO A SER UNA GARANTÍA DE SEGURIDAD DE LOS ESTADOS DE EUROPA OCCIDENTAL ANTE LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA Y SUS ALIADOS. EL PACTO DE VARSOVIA SE CREÓ MÁS TARDE, EN 1955, PARA CONTRARRESTAR A LA OTAN TRAS LA ADMISIÓN Y EL POSIBLE REARME DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. COMO LE ERA PROPIO A LA COYUNTURA DE LA GUERRA FRÍA LAS FUERZAS DE LA OTAN ACTUARON SÓLO COMO FUERZA DISUASORIA.

EN 1954, LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA PROPUSO SU UNIÓN A LA OTAN, CON EL OBJETIVO DE MANTENER LA PAZ EN EUROPA, PERO LOS PAÍSES ALIADOS RECHAZARON LA PROPUESTA. ESTO, JUNTO CON LA INCORPORACIÓN DE ALEMANIA OCCIDENTAL A LA ORGANIZACIÓN EL 9 DE MAYO DE 1955, QUE FUE DESCRITA COMO «UN MOMENTO DECISORIO EN LA HISTORIA DE NUESTRO CONTINENTE» POR EL MINISTRO DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES DE NORUEGA DEL MOMENTO, HALVARD LANGE, TUVO COMO CONSECUENCIA INMEDIATA LA CREACIÓN DEL PACTO DE VARSOVIA, FIRMADO EL 14 DE MAYO DE 1955 POR LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA Y SUS ALIADOS. ESTE PACTO SE CONSIDERA LA RESPUESTA FORMAL A LA OTAN, PONIENDO DE MANIFIESTO LOS DOS BANDOS OPUESTOS DE LA GUERRA FRÍA.

LA UNIDAD DE LA OTAN HA SIDO PUESTA EN EVIDENCIA YA DESDE SUS PRINCIPIOS. EN 1958, DE GAULLE PROTESTÓ POR EL PAPEL HEGEMÓNICO QUE TENÍAN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EN LA ORGANIZACIÓN, Y POR LO QUE, A ENTENDIMIENTO DEL PRESIDENTE, ERA UNA RELACIÓN ESPECIAL ENTRE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EL REINO UNIDO. EN UN MEMORÁNDUM ENVIADO AL PRESIDENTE EISENHOWER Y AL PRIMER MINISTRO MACMILLAN EL 17 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 1958, ARGUMENTABA A FAVOR DE LA CREACIÓN DE UNA DIRECCIÓN TRIPARTIDA, QUE PUSIESE A FRANCIA EN IGUALDAD DE CONDICIONES QUE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EL REINO UNIDO, ABOGANDO TAMBIÉN POR LA EXPANSIÓN DE LA OTAN EN LAS ÁREAS GEOGRÁFICAS DE INTERÉS PARA FRANCIA, COMO ARGELIA, DONDE FRANCIA INTENTABA ELIMINAR LAS FUERZAS INSURGENTES Y NECESITABA LA AYUDA DE LA OTAN.

DE GAULLE CONSIDERÓ LAS RESPUESTAS DADAS COMO INSATISFACTORIAS, ASÍ QUE DECIDIÓ CONSTRUIR UNA DEFENSA INDEPENDIENTE PARA SU PAÍS. EL 11 DE MARZO DE 1959, FRANCIA RETIRÓ SU FLOTA EN EL MEDITERRÁNEO DEL COMANDO DE LA OTAN; TRES MESES DESPUÉS, EN JUNIO DE 1959, DE GAULLE PROHIBIÓ LA ENTRADA DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EXTRANJERAS EN TERRITORIO FRANCÉS. ESTO PROVOCÓ QUE ESTADOS UNIDOS TRANSFIRIERA 200 AVIONES A FRANCIA Y DEVOLVIERA EL CONTROL, ENTRE 1950 Y 1967, DE LAS DIEZ MAYORES BASES AÉREAS QUE HABÍAN OPERADO EN FRANCIA. LA ÚLTIMA BASE DEVUELTA FUE LA DE TOUL-ROSIÈRES, BASE DE LA 26ª ALA DE RECONOCIMIENTO, QUE FUE TRASLADADA A LA BASE AÉREA DE RAMSTEIN, EN ALEMANIA OCCIDENTAL.

MIENTRAS TANTO, FRANCIA HABÍA INICIADO INDEPENDIENTEMENTE SU PROPIO PROGRAMA NUCLEAR, LLAMADO FORCE DE FRAPPE. FRANCIA PROBÓ SU PRIMER ARMA NUCLEAR, GERBOISE BLEUE, EL 13 DE FEBRERO DE 1960 EN LA ARGELIA FRANCESA.

AUNQUE FRANCIA MOSTRÓ SOLIDARIDAD RESPECTO AL RESTO DE LA OTAN DURANTE LA CRISIS DE LOS MISILES DE CUBA EN 1962, DE GAULLE CONTINUÓ CON SU PROPÓSITO DE CONSTITUIR UNA DEFENSA INDEPENDIENTE RETIRANDO DEL COMANDO LA FLOTA FRANCESA DEL ATLÁNTICO Y DEL CANAL DE LA MANCHA. EN 1966, LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS FRANCESAS FUERON RETIRADAS DEL COMANDO INTEGRADO DE LA OTAN, Y SE ORDENÓ QUE TODAS LAS TROPAS NO FRANCESAS ABANDONASEN EL TERRITORIO GALO. TODO ELLO TAMBIÉN PROVOCÓ QUE EL 16 DE OCTUBRE DE 1967 SE TRASLADASE EL CUARTEL SUPREMO DE LA ALIANZA EN EUROPA (SHAPE) DE PARÍS A CASTEAU, AL NORTE DE MONS, EN BÉLGICA. FRANCIA CONTINUÓ SIENDO MIEMBRO DE LA ALIANZA, Y AYUDÓ EN LA DEFENSA DE EUROPA DE UN POSIBLE ATAQUE SOVIÉTICO CON SUS TROPAS ESTACIONADAS EN ALEMANIA OCCIDENTAL. FRANCIA VOLVIÓ A UNIRSE AL COMITÉ MILITAR EN 1995 Y EL PRESIDENTE NICOLAS SARKOZY REINTEGRÓ A FRANCIA EN EL COMANDO INTEGRADO EN COINCIDENCIA CON LA CUMBRE DEL 60º ANIVERSARIO DE LA ALIANZA DEL 3 Y 4 DE ABRIL DEL 2008, QUE SE CELEBRÓ ENTRE ESTRASBURGO Y KELH, EN LA FRONTERA FRANCO-ALEMANA.

DESINTEGRACIÓN DE LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA

TRAS LA DESINTEGRACIÓN DE LA UNIÓN SOVIÉTICA, LA OTAN HA REFORMULADO SUS OBJETIVOS Y ACTIVIDADES HASTA APROPIARSE DE LA SEGURIDAD DE TODO EL HEMISFERIO NORTE. EN ESTE MARCO, SE DESARROLLÓ LA ÚNICA OPERACIÓN DE ATAQUE POR PARTE DE LA OTAN EN TODA SU HISTORIA, A EXCEPCIÓN DE LA INCURSIÓN EN 1995 EN LA REPÚBLICA DE BOSNIA Y HERZEGOVINA CONTRA LAS FUERZAS SERBIAS EN LO QUE SE CONOCIÓ COMO LA OPERACIÓN FUERZA DELIBERADA, EL ATAQUE CONTRA YUGOSLAVIA EN 1999. INICIALMENTE, EL ATAQUE ESTABA DESTINADO A PARAR LA LIMPIEZA ÉTNICA EN KOSOVO, DONDE SE REALIZÓ UNA GRAN CANTIDAD DE CRÍMENES CONTRA LA POBLACIÓN CIVIL.

DESPUÉS DEL 11-S

Tras la invasión de Afganistán por parte de EE. UU., la OTAN ha llevado una misión encargada por la ONU llamada Fuerza Internacional de Asistencia para la Seguridad (ISAF). En Irak, simplemente se ha limitado a entrenar a las fuerzas de seguridad de este país. Las negativas de numerosos países europeos a que la OTAN actuara en Irak, encabezados por Alemania, disuadió a éste organismo de involucrarse directamente en una guerra iniciada por EE. UU. y el Reino Unido. 

En septiembre de 2006, la OTAN puso en marcha la Operación Medusa sobre el sur de Afganistán, con el objetivo de acabar con los reductos talibán en Panjwai y Zhari, en Kandahar, donde los insurgentes poseían una fuerte presencia. Hasta el 10 de septiembre de 2007, se estima que han fallecido unos 400 supuestos talibán, y 20 soldados extranjeros en Kandahar.

Por petición de la OTAN al gobierno colombiano en el año 2008, se solicitó la presencia de tropas del Ejército Colombiano y expertos en antiminas y antinarcóticos para participar en esta labor que se desarrolla en la región bajo la jurisdicción del Ejército de España, debido a su gran experiencia en estos temas, mayor a la del resto de países que conforman la OTAN. El 20 de febrero de 2009 fue aprobada la participación del Ejército Colombiano en la ISAF bajo bandera española como lo afirma el comandante de las FF. AA. de Colombia; inicialmente se enviarán 150 hombres expertos en antiminas, antinarcóticos, y posiblemente en operaciones de fuerzas especiales; aún no se ha confirmado la fecha del envío de estas tropas. El caso de Colombia resulta particular por cuestiones de no pertenecer geográficamente a la región del Atlántico Norte y, al mismo tiempo, no ser una nación perteneciente a la OTAN.

El TRATADO DE WASHINGTON

En el tratado se observa cómo se pretendía que Europa llevase a cabo su propia defensa militar, pues en el artículo 3 se permite que Estados Unidos ayude al desarrollo militar de Europa, a modo de Plan Marshall en el ámbito militar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

.

IS NATO OBSOLETE ?

John Mauldin

Inauguration is in the air here in Washington. While we all wonder what Donald Trump will say in his first speech as President, I find myself thinking of other inaugural addresses in light of today’s issues.

One that comes to mind is Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 speech. In stating that peaceful relations with other countries were one of our “essential principles,” Jefferson spoke that now-famous line, that the US seeks “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Today the US is entangled in enough alliances to have Jefferson rolling over in his grave. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization tops the list, and Trump sent US American foreign policy hawks and European elites into conniption fits when he suggested NATO was obsolete and we should rethink US participation in it.

The reaction was ridiculous, in my opinion. We say something is obsolete when it no longer serves its original purpose. That is unquestionably true of NATO, as George Friedman explains in today’s Outside the Box. NATO’s single reason for being is to protect Western Europe from Soviet invasion and/or domination. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But NATO still does.

On one level, I think this illustrates the inertia common to all government projects. Once launched, they quickly achieve self-awareness, followed by delusions of permanence, and refuse to go away. NATO is like that, but with the added dimension of having been a key international institution.

With the Soviet Union long gone, a discussion of NATO’s role is long overdue. It is now the elephant in the room of US–European relations. From George’s article:

For 25 years, the fundamental question regarding NATO was not raised in polite company – that is, in the company of NATO countries’ leadership. That question, from the American point of view, divides into three parts. 

First, with the Soviet Union gone, what is NATO’s purpose?

 Second, how does NATO serve the American national interest? 

Third, given the fact that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the U.S., why isn’t Europe’s collective contribution to NATO’s military capability larger than the U.S.’? 

By contribution, I don’t simply mean money, but a suitably large, trained and equipped force able to support the wars that are being fought now.

We were going to face these questions anyway, even without Trump. He has simply hastened the inevitable. Far better to have that discussion now than to wait and have it in the middle of a crisis.

The NATO discussion is one thread within a larger debate on Europe’s future. The stakes are high for the Continent. The European Union is losing the UK, and others may follow. The euro currency zone is pushing the limits of monetary sanity. Add a NATO breakup to that list and the result could be a very different Europe in just a few years. Whether it will be a better Europe remains to be seen.

I have been reading George Friedman for many, many years. We met well over a decade ago and have become close personal friends. I enjoy every moment that I get to spend with George and Meredith (you hardly ever see George without Meredith in close proximity, which is a good thing), and my time with them has included some of the most intense and interesting conversations that I have ever experienced. George is simply an intense person.

When he decided that he was going to leave Stratfor, we talked about that process and why. Yes, there were some business reasons, but they weren’t the driver. He wanted to be able to reframe his writing and thinking. He talked passionately about that, but at the time I really didn’t understand what he meant by it.

I may not have read everything George has written in the last 10 years, but I’ve most of it. And lately, I have come to realize that there is simply a different tenor, a more strident purposefulness to his writing. His work and that of the team that he has put together at Geopolitical Futures has become what I call “George unleashed.”

The old punchline that people use after somebody says something passionate is, “Why don’t you tell us how you really feel?” I realized a few weeks ago that the George I am now reading is the George that I have conversations with. This is the George that I actually recognize. It is George up close and personal, telling you how he really feels about the topics he’s writing about. He brings his 40 years of experience to bear forcefully on those topics, whether he’s giving us a framework for understanding a geopolitical situation or making a specific point.

When he told me he was leaving Stratfor I immediately said “Let’s partner up.” As in, that second. And for all intents and purposes, we agreed to do it almost on the spot. The details took a little bit longer. I can’t tell you how pleased I am to be able to bring his work to my friends and readers. If you are not subscribing to George, click here and just take a trial subscription. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, then unsubscribe. Get your money back. But my bet is that you will find George and the rest of his team to be somewhat addictive. They really do give you a far better way to look at the world outside of the (multiple expletives deleted) fog and smoke and mirrors of the mainstream media, where we see so much that is written by people who don& rsquo;t really understand what they’re talking about, or whose worldview dictates a certain interpretation.

George just wants to know what reality is, and then he tries to describe it for you the best he can. It’s that simple. Here’s the link again.

It’s Thursday afternoon and I’m in Washington DC, going from one meeting to the next. At most of those meetings I am being told that people are glad to talk with me, but it has to be off the record. I had my video production crew here and was thinking about doing a documentary; but getting around DC this week is difficult at best, and the people I am talking to – the people who are actually putting the new administration’s plans together – don’t want to be on the record with them just yet. Just videotaping somebody who can’t give us anything really useful is not the best use of my time or yours.

What I am going to do, though, is sit down Saturday morning and just knock out an off-the-cuff letter to you on “What I Learned in Washington DC.” There are a lot of excited people here, but there are also a lot of very sober, thoughtful people who recognize what a monumental task is in front of them. I don’t want to write that letter today, as I need to do some more reflecting; but let me just say that it is not going to be all sweetness and light. It is going to be very real and very intense.

The last time I was in DC for an inaugural was in 2000 for George W‘s foray into the presidency. There was optimism then, too. Sadly, the next eight years were ones of great disappointment as far as conservative policy was concerned. The Republicans broke Coach Barry Switzer’s first rule: “Don’t fumble the *%$#@$ football!” The Republicans proceeded to fumble the ball over and over again, for almost 8 years. Trump is taking over with a much worse situation than George W faced. I’ve been talking to Uber drivers and people on the street here about how they feel about the incoming administration. You get a lot of interesting answers. Then when they ask me what I think, I simply say that I am skeptically optimistic. And they laugh. Which is probably the way to approach this. 

__________________________________________________________________________

 NATO AND THE USA ( OUTSIDE THE BOX)

By George Friedman

The president-elect has pointed out a reality many choose to ignore.

President-elect Donald Trump deeply upset the Europeans by raising the possibility that NATO is obsolete and that the European Union is failing. This is not the first time these issues have been raised. Many in the United States have raised questions about Europe’s commitment to NATO and to its relationship with the U.S. Many Europeans also have made the observation that the EU is failing. What Trump has done is simply bring into the open the question of Europe’s relationship with the U.S.

This question has been on the table for 25 years, since the Soviet Union collapsed. NATO was an alliance with a single purpose: to protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. That was a clear and understandable goal in the interest of all concerned. The military structure that was created was directed toward that end. And it reflected the relative economic and military strength of each party at the time of NATO’s founding. The Europeans bore the geographical risk. Any war would be fought on their territory, and their forces would face the first wave of an attack. In the long term, American reinforcements, air power and, in an extreme case, nuclear weapons would protect Europe. The foundation of the relationship was that Europe, with the best will, could not afford to build a sufficient defensive force. The U.S. was the indispensable force that could deter and defeat a Soviet attack.

ATTACHED TO THIS POST :

 In this photo illustration, a copy of the Jan. 16 issue of German tabloid Bild Zeitung that features an exclusive interview with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump lies on a table in a train in Berlin, Germany. 

In the interview, Trump branded German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy a mistake,

The NATO military alliance obsolete and threatened German carmakers with 35 percent import tariffs.

The basic structure of NATO did not change in 1991. What happened was an expansion to include the former Soviet satellite states and the Baltic states. Little military consideration was given to that expansion. Europe no longer faced a military threat. The motive behind the expansion was to bring these countries into the framework of the Western defense system to give them confidence in their independence and help support the development of democracies on the Continent. 

The motivation was roughly the same as for expanding the EU. The bloc was primarily an economic entity. It expanded its membership without serious thought to its economic mission. Simply being an EU member was believed to enhance prosperity, so that even the economically weakest countries would become robust after attaining membership. The real motive was to expand the EU as far as possible, to integrate as much of Europe as possible into the political and social culture that the union guaranteed. As with NATO, EU expansion had less to do with the EU’s primary mission than with political and ideological factors.

The EU question is ultimately a European problem. The U.S. can’t save it, and it won’t collapse because of American opinion. Here, the Europeans must take responsibility for what happens. But NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It includes Canada and the United States. It is an alliance, and the U.S. has important and legitimate interests.

For 25 years, the fundamental question regarding NATO was not raised in polite company – that is, in the company of NATO countries’ leadership. That question, from the American point of view, divides into three parts. First, with the Soviet Union gone, what is NATO’s purpose? Second, how does NATO serve the American national interest? Third, given the fact that the EU has almost as large a GDP and almost 200 million more people than the U.S., why isn’t Europe’s collective contribution to NATO’s military capability larger than the U.S.’? By contribution, I don’t simply mean money, but a suitably large, trained and equipped force able to support the wars that are being fought now.

The automatic answer to the first question is that NATO’s purpose is to guarantee its members’ security. On the second question, it can’t be argued that NATO has served American interests since 1991. For the last 15 years, the U.S. has been engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Muslim countries. Whether wise or not, these wars have been waged to different degrees under both Republican and Democratic administrations. NATO is a military alliance and one of its members, the United States, has been involved in wars for 15 years. NATO as an institution has not devoted anywhere near the military force it could afford to any of these wars.

It is true that NATO’s area of responsibility is focused on Europe, and the U.S.’ current wars are outside of this area. But from the American point of view, maintaining an alliance with a region where large-scale warfare is unlikely makes little sense. The place where the U.S. needs a large commitment from allies is outside of Europe. NATO must evolve with the needs of its members, and if it can’t, it can be seen (as Trump put it) as obsolete, an alliance created to fight a war that will not happen, and unable to fight a war that has happened.

It is certainly true that NATO committed itself to fighting in Afghanistan. Many countries sent contingents. Some, like the Germans, were not permitted to engage in offensive operations, others were too small to be anything more than symbolic. Everything taken together was insufficient to affect the strategic balance on the battlefield. They were there in spirit, but wars are fought with large numbers of troops and equipment. This brings us to the third question – the size of the European force. A military alliance requires a military, and many European countries, in times of prosperity as well as constraint, have chosen not to create a force large enough to support American interests. Their unwillingness to do so has created a reality, which is that even when NATO commits to fighting alongside the Americans, European capabilities limit their contribution to the margins.

NATO chose not to support the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. This may well have been wise on its part. But the reality was the following. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11. The initial response was in Afghanistan. The U.S. chose to carry out a follow-on action, in the same conflict, in Iraq. The NATO alliance refused to commit itself to this. Some members fought alongside the U.S., particularly Britain, along with some smaller countries. But France and Germany refused.

This was their right as sovereign states. But in exercising that right, they radically reshaped their relationship with the U.S. They would participate in a U.S.-led war if it was in their self-interests. The U.S. could not assume it would receive their automatic support. In that case, the question is what does an alliance with France, Germany and others mean? The issue is not what NATO’s charter says. That charter is obsolete and must evolve to account for new conditions. The issue also is not whether the U.S. was starting a new war in Iraq or continuing the one that began in Afghanistan. The diplomats can argue that as they wish. The issue is that the U.S. was engaged in wars for 15 years, and there was no automatic support from NATO or major European countries in those wars. The countries that wanted to participate fought, with as much or as little as they chose to send . Those that wanted to fight in one war and not the other did. And those that didn’t want to get involved in any wars or arranged to be unable to engage, fought in neither.

Nations have the right and obligation to carry out their foreign and military policies as they wish. But an alliance constrains nations to behave in a certain way given certain events. An alliance is a pooling of sovereignty. It is absolutely true that NATO wasn’t conceived to fight wars outside of Europe. Nor was it conceived as an organization where the primary military burden falls on the Europeans. But Europeans must face two facts. First, this is 2017, and the wars that matter to the U.S. are being fought in the Islamic world. Second, this is not 1955, and Europe is not struggling to recover from World War II. It is a wealthy region, and its military capabilities should be equal to those of the U.S.

There is a long argument to be had about the wisdom of U.S. policy in the Middle East. It may well be that those countries that limited their involvement in those wars made a wise choice. But that also means that there is no alliance in any practical sense. The U.S. was at war in two countries with multidivisional forces. Each NATO country sent what it chose to Afghanistan. Many chose not to go to Iraq.

This was not an alliance action, but individual European countries making the decisions that best suited them. That cannot be criticized, but this does not constitute an alliance. NATO is obsolete if it defines its responsibility primarily to repel a Russian invasion, especially since it refused to create a military force capable of doing that. It is obsolete in that its original mission is gone. It is obsolete in that it regards the U.S. as the guarantor of Europe’s security, when Europe is quite capable of incurring the cost of self-defense. If European nations are free to follow their own interests, then so is the United States.

When we step back from the argument between the U.S. and Europe on NATO, we see a broader reality. First, the European Union is fragmenting and that fragmentation necessarily affects NATO. Europe is in no position to undertake unanimously supported NATO operations. Nor is it in a position to incur the political costs of a massive military buildup. For the Europeans, NATO is important because it guarantees that, in the extraordinary circumstance of a European war, the U.S. is, under treaty, required to be there.

The United States has other interests. It is interested in preventing Russian hegemony over the European Peninsula, but the U.S. can effectively address that by placing limited forces in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. Just as the Europeans have devolved NATO into bilateral relations between the U.S. and each NATO member, the United States can do the same. Similarly, the U.S. can accept the status quo in Ukraine, written or unwritten. Kiev has a pro-Western government, the east is a de facto autonomous region, and the rights of ethnic Russians in Sevastopol are guaranteed by the Russians. The U.S. is not going to war in Ukraine, and Russia is not going to war there, either.

Trump’s approach to NATO has been forced on the U.S. by the Europeans and would be on the table with a different president. NATO doesn’t function as an alliance. It is a group of sovereign nations that will respond to American requests as they see fit. The U.S. understands this, and inevitably, the veil of good manners was going to be torn away. Someone was going to point out that NATO is obsolete. Trump happened to enjoy saying it.

But whether it is a tragedy or comedy, the matter can be summed up the following way. The Europeans are wondering if the U.S. will leave NATO. The U.S. is wondering if the Europeans will join NATO. Forgetting NATO, the question is this. What is the commitment of European countries to the United States, and what is the American commitment to Europe? It is not clear that there is a geopolitical basis for this commitment any longer. Interests have diverged, NATO is not suited to the realities of today, and the U.S.’ relations with European states differ from nation to nation, as do European .


Escrito por

dennis falvy

Economista de la Universidad Católica con un master en administración en la Universidad de Harvard; periodista en economía .


Publicado en