In advance of the May 20-21 summit of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization in Chicago, Foreign Policy and the Atlantic Council asked dozens of experts about the role of the alliance today. Heads of state,
ministers of defense and foreign affairs, intelligence officers, and current
and former members of U.S. Congress were among the respondents who answered our
call. Although none of them thought NATO should cease to exist or that the United
States would be better off leaving the alliance, they were less certain about
whether NATO can adapt to a changing geopolitical and military landscape -- and
just who will foot the bill for future operations.
They rated Greece, currently struggling to repay its crushing debt load, the top candidate to be kicked out of the alliance, exhibited deep divides on how to handle a troubled relationship with Russia, predicted that NATO would be unable to pull off another Libya-style intervention three years from now, and overwhelmingly viewed the Afghan mission as a failure.
Unless otherwise noted,
figures indicate number of responses.
Should NATO exist?
"If it did not exist, we would have to invent it."
"But the Europeans must get their act together if they are to be worthy partners in the alliance."
"But in a redefined form, with broader alliances and links to regional groups."
2. If so, what should be its primary purpose?
Collective defense of
Keeping Russia in
"Both A and B. The former as the core task, the latter as the useful add-on."
"All of the above, plus crisis response."
"Promotion of a common political agenda."
"All of the above, plus coordination of intelligence regarding global fundamentalism/terrorism."
In 1993, Sen. Richard Lugar argued that NATO has to "go
out of area or out of business." Since then, NATO forces have deployed in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf of Aden, and Libya. Do you think
NATO should continue to support deployable forces for operations outside Europe
and the United States?
"But with strict limits and, ideally, as part of a U.N. mission."
"Only as there is a clear relevance for European security."
"Only in case such deployment contributes to strengthening of members' security. No role as a global policeman."
"In a globalizing world there is no more 'out-of-area.' The world is our area now."
"Only on a very highly selective, case-by-case basis; as a rule, no."
Jason Reed - Pool/Getty Images
4. True or false: The United States would be better off if
it left NATO.
"A stable Europe is important for the U.S., if for no other reason than economics."
"Does anyone remember that Article 5 was invoked only once in the institution's history? Namely, after an attack against the United States?"
"But it would be better off if it limited its involvement to Article 5 and left Article 4 to the allies."
5. If you had to kick one country out of NATO, which one
would it be?
"For its behavior toward Macedonia and Turkey."
"Due to its boundlessly selfish egotism and disruptive tactics."
Other: Albania, Cyprus,
Germany, Italy, Luxembourg (1 vote each)
"Each member counts politically, militarily, and intellectually. NATO should be (carefully and gradually) expanding, not shrinking."
6. If you had to admit one country to NATO, which one
would it be?
"It is a producer, not a consumer, of security for Europe."
Other: Bosnia, Japan,
Mexico, Norway, Russia (1 vote each)
JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images
7. Should Russia be allowed to join NATO?
"Yes, in principle, if its foreign policy changes."
"Yes. At least it should never be excluded."
"Allowing Russia to join NATO implies willingness/commitment from Russia's part to do so, which is obviously not the case."
"They continue to define their security in opposition to NATO."
Maybe, but not now:
"Not until it is a democracy. Then we can talk."
"If it meets the criteria, including democracy and commitment to human rights."
"Sure, if it meets NATO requirements. That would essentially mean that it would no longer be Russia."
"Only in very different circumstances from today."
8. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = least relevant, 10 = most
relevant), rate NATO's relevance to U.S. security. On the same scale, rate
NATO's relevance to European security.
9. True or false: NATO is an essential part of my
country's national security. (Please also write the name of your country in
United States/Canada: 24
United States: 5
YANA LAPIKOVA/AFP/Getty Images
has been more than 20 years since the Soviet Union was dissolved and more than
10 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do you think NATO members are safer
in 2012 than they were in 1991?
"At least from the threat of major war, they are much safer."
"The quality of internal security and awareness of potential threats has risen since then."
"Weaker militarily and economically with more threats."
"Threats have evolved but not necessarily our capability to meet them."
About the same: 4
"Safer in the sense that the real danger of a sudden and massive Soviet attack against Europe, including the use of nuclear weapons, has receded and is currently very, very low. Less safe in the sense that the host of new global 'low-key' dangers is pressing against us all the time, with the possibility of sudden, cataclysmic black swans ever present."
the following NATO military campaigns by how successful they have been, with 1
indicating the most successful and 6 the least.
Libya no-fly zone:
Gulf of Aden
anti-piracy mission: 4.00
Afghanistan war: 4.98
or false: The 2011 Libya intervention provided an overall positive model for
future NATO military operations.
"It confirmed that NATO can act without direct U.S. involvement."
"It demonstrated the political and military ability of NATO to respond quickly to a crisis."
"While undoubtedly a big success, the operation in Libya was sui generis, limited in goal and resources, and therefore not a model for future action."
Arif Ali/AFP/Getty Images
NATO's European members have conducted the operation in Libya without U.S.
"With real difficulty."
"But not necessarily in the same way as it was conducted and not necessarily primarily with air power."
NATO's European members have the military capabilities to conduct a similar
operation three years from now?
"If current trends continue."
"Europe will be even more pathetic then."
I don't know: 4
or false: Al Qaeda will return to Afghanistan once the International Security
Assistance Force mission ends.
"There is a large possibility that it will, but it will land in a fundamentally different operational landscape and will take years to rebuild its previous operational capabilities."
"At least on any meaningful scale."
"False, if the current strategy is properly executed; true, if we rush for the exits."
"Have they ever really left?"
BERTRAND LANGLOIS/AFP/Getty Images
NATO intervene in Syria?
"With the Arab League."
"With a no-fly zone."
"It could have, weeks ago, with goals similar to Libya. The issue now goes well beyond the question of a Syrian civil war."
"Are you kidding? NATO does not have the resources: no will, limited skill, no tools. Quite apart from the question of what our interests are."
"If necessary and only with a U.N. mandate."
"Only to protect Turkey."
will the next large-scale NATO operation take place?
Middle East: 29
North Africa: 14
"Likely piracy-related rather than Arab Awakening-related."
"Balkan tensions are not over."
Southern Africa: 2
"The Arctic is heating up economically and politically, and key NATO nations have vital interests to protect there and the military resources to do it with."
Latin America: 1
None of the above: 4
"There will be no major operation in the foreseeable future."
"Most probably NATO's next battle will not take place in a geographical location but in cyberspace."
I don't know: 3
of the following NATO missions would you approve? (Please select any that apply.)
through the Persian Gulf: 51
government with civil-military reforms: 49
Reducing pirate bases
in Somalia: 41
Peacekeeping force to
support Israel/Palestine peace agreement: 31
Preventing Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons: 24
peacemaking force in Syria: 22
migration across NATO borders: 12
are the five biggest challenges facing the transatlantic alliance? Please rank
from among the following, with 1 indicating the biggest challenge.
Economic crisis: 1.84
divisions: 2.39 (25 votes)
Afghanistan: 2.71 (31
Terrorism: 3.23 (35
Cyber conflict: 3.27 (35
Syria: 3.31 (15
proliferation: 3.44 (29 votes)
Russia: 3.64 (28
change/energy: 3.79 (19 votes)
4.33 (3 votes)
Other: 12 votes
June 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates described NATO's future as "dim
if not dismal," charging that NATO nations were "apparently unwilling to devote
the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable
partners in their own defense." Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?
"He is spot on."
"The economic crisis might be a temporary excuse for doing less, but in the long run European states must contribute more to collective defense."
"Largely true, but it has always been thus."
"There is always a crisis in NATO, and future capabilities will depend on operations."
"He's much too dour about the alliance."
"He is right in blaming the Europeans for their lackluster performance. But this will not mean the end of NATO. Sheer necessity will keep NATO alive."
"Partially true: Common values and interests go far beyond military expenditure."
or false: The United States has too many military personnel in Europe.
"It is not the numbers that count, but the commitment to support European NATO members and the ability to do so fast if needed. That does not require a lot of boots on the ground in peacetime, but it does require a commitment on both sides of the Atlantic."
"It is appropriate to fulfill the assigned tasks."
ARIS MESSINIS/AFP/Getty Images
2020, the U.S. force presence in Europe will amount to:
(current level): 0
(Obama plan): 10
50,000 personnel: 17
40,000 personnel: 10
Fewer than 40,000
or false: European member states should devote more funding to NATO.
"But unlikely to happen due to resource scarcity."
"They should, however, spend their defense money better."
or false: NATO should have both defensive and offensive cyber-capabilities.
Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images
Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's "smart defense" initiative -- using "multinational
solutions" to help allies invest defense money more efficiently -- will:
Mask NATO's inability
to make major necessary reforms: 18
Become the new way
NATO does business by "building capabilities together": 15
but not until at least five years from now: 11
Provide an excuse for
allies to make further defense cuts: 8
"Have a very limited impact on NATO's future, if at all."
"Increase the risk of member states not having sufficient capabilities of self-help in case of an attack."
"Depends entirely on implementation."
or false: Five years from now, France will still be part of NATO's integrated
"This depends a lot on the French economy. If it is not revived, there will be more and more nationalist pressure from within France. For a weak president, splitting from NATO would be a cheap way to get a few points at home."
2020, German foreign policy will be defined primarily by:
German leadership of the European Union: 28
Berlin's preference for the status quo: 14
Germany's relationship with Russia: 5
The Franco-German relationship: 4
The transatlantic relationship: 3
"Germany's relationship with China, Russia, and other BRICS."
"Investments abroad to deal with an aging and less productive population."
Turkey has not become a member of the European Union five years from now, its
orientation will be:
Pursuing a revival of
Ottoman power: 21
More closely aligned
with its Muslim neighbors: 13
Still closely aligned
with its Western allies: 11
Inwardly focused due
to domestic strife: 2
"Turkey will maintain alignment with the West but also pursue closer relations with the East. It does not see them as incompatible."
"More engaged not just with Muslim neighbors but also with Russia."
29. In order of importance, NATO's top three
priorities for the Chicago summit should be:
Reinforcing the transatlantic alliance: 14
"Smart defense" plan: 13
Re-evaluation of NATO mission and role: 13
Defense capabilities and spending: 8
Ballistic missile defense: 7
Arab Spring/Middle East: 3
EU coordination: 3
Nuclear threats/arms reduction: 3
Postwar Libya: 2
Partnerships with Arab countries: 2
U.S. troop withdrawal from Europe
ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images
Participants (59): David Aaron, David
Abrahams, Rafael Bardaji, Hans Binnendijk, Dirk Brengelmann, Yves Brodeur, Ian
Brzezinski, Frances Burwell, Christopher Chivvis, W. Eugene Cobble, Heather
Conley, Marios Efthymiopoulos, Charles Freeman, Karsten Friis, Jeremy Ghez, James Goldgeier, Ana
Maria Gomes, Ulrike Guerot, Jason Healey, P. Terrence Hopmann,
Toomas Hendrik Ilves, James Joyner, Rasa Jukneviciene, Karl Kaiser, Lawrence
Kaplan, Sarwar Kashmeri, Sean Kay, Daniel Keohane, Jim Kolbe, Aleksander
Kwasniewski, Iurie Leanca, Henrik Liljegren, Julian Lindley-French, Richard
Lugar, Jüri Luik, George Maior, Tomas Malmlöf,
Sally McNamara, Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo, Shuja Nawaz, Boyko Noev, Clara Marina O'Donnell, Ioan Mircea
Pascu, Barry Pavel, J. Peter Pham, Tomas Ries, Matthew
Rojansky, Stephen Saideman, Kori Schake, Daniel Serwer, Stanley R. Sloan, John
Tanner, Jan Techau, Kenneth Weisbrode, Damon Wilson, Boguslaw Winid, Jörg
Wolf, Dov Zakheim, Michael Zilmer-Johns.
by Jorge Benitez and Margaret Slattery