NATO in Difficulty Due to Over-Stretch and Intra-Alliance Disagreements

Failure in Afghanistan is adding pressure

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) risks collapse as a result of commitments taken on since
the end of the Cold War, according to a study released today by the Cato
Institute.

"The members of the alliance, sharing the triumphalism that underpinned U.S.
foreign policy after the Cold War, have taken on an assortment of problematic
obligations, and increasingly they are failing to meet the resulting
challenges. ... If NATO fails to meet [them], its survival should not be taken
for granted," writes Stanley Kober, a Cato research fellow in foreign policy,
in "Cracks in the Foundation: NATO's New Troubles."

The most notable of these challenges is the war in Afghanistan. Invoking
Article V of its constitution -- an attack against one member country
constitutes an attack against all -- after the September 11, 2001 attacks,
NATO supported the United States' venture into Afghanistan. What at first
seemed to be a successful operation soon deteriorated as the Taliban revived
and the level of commitment among NATO members varied based on, among other
things, popular support. Different rules of engagement have made the NATO
forces difficult to command and have fostered resentment between the
participating countries.

NATO's expansion has also strained the Alliance's capabilities. As it has
admitted members from the former Soviet bloc, the organization has extended
beyond its sphere of influence, thereby diluting its clout in the region. This
was especially obvious when Russia launched a cyber attack against Estonia in
2007. "Supposedly, once Estonia was included in NATO, its security would be
assured. The cyber attacks indicate that argument must now be questioned,"
writes Kober.

Another source of tension between the member states is the anti-missile
facilities that the United States wants to build in the Czech Republic and
Poland. The purpose of these facilities, the Bush administration claims, is to
provide protection against missiles. However, the location of the facilities
would essentially create two levels of security within Europe as they would
offer greater protection to parts of the continent and the United States. "For
me the indivisibility of security is key," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's
Secretary General, has said. "When it comes to missile defense, there
shouldn't be an A-league and a B-league within NATO."

Further, public opinion within these countries greatly opposes the creation of
these facilities. Russia has already taken advantage of this sentiment. "In
short, the ABM proposal is already dividing NATO, and Putin is exploiting
those divisions."

The United State's position on Kosovo is another source of contention among
the member states.

The quandaries that threaten to split NATO could also potentially create a
global divide reminiscent of the Cold War. "Alliances lead to
counteralliances" Kober writes, [and] "as NATO has expanded, Russia's
relations with China, in particular, have grown apace, leading initially to
the formation of the Shanghai Five and then to the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization."

Kober concludes: "Given the difficulties the alliance is confronting, it is
not too early to begin discussions with our allies about what a post-NATO
world would look like."

This report can be found at: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8875

SOURCE Cato Institute

Laura Osio, media relations manager of the Cato Institute, +1-202-789-5200,
losio@cato.org