Why a two-tiered NATO may not be such a bad thing

Robert Kaplan sees some silver in those grey Afghan clouds:

WITH NATO set to hold its annual summit next week in Bucharest, there is concern that the failure of Germany and other members to carry a larger share of the burden in Afghanistan is threatening the alliance’s future. Critics complain that it has become an unequal, two-tiered alliance, with the troops of the United States, Britain, Canada and Holland taking the combat role while Germany, Italy, Spain and other members take refuge in the safe areas, refusing to put their soldiers in danger.

It certainly isn’t fair. Yet predictions of NATO’s decline hold it to an impossible cold war standard. Then, a direct mortal threat to Central Europe in the form of Red Army divisions led to an all-for-one and one-for-all mentality. Now that the threat is more subtle and diverse, NATO’s mandate, structure and personality need to change accordingly.

[...]

Let’s face it, the threat of a Taliban comeback in Afghanistan is not of the same order as the threat Germany faced from the Soviet Union, so is it any wonder that Germany’s attitude has changed? Rather than bully the Germans into doing what they’re not very good at — counterinsurgency — in the violent south of Afghanistan, we should be grateful that they’re doing something they are good at — nation-building — in the relatively peaceful north.

The same holds for countries like Italy and Spain, whose troops are also restricted to northern Afghanistan. In the post-cold-war world, individual NATO members can’t be expected to automatically take part in missions outside the alliance’s traditional European sphere. Participation will be contingent on specific circumstances. And that will lead to an increasingly stratified alliance.

[...]

...countries like the United States and Britain will simply have to carry a heavier burden than others. But what of it? NATO has always operated as a multi-tiered organization. During the cold war, northern countries essentially ran the show while the southern ones went meekly along (except for Greece, which often protested loudly). France, in a fit of Gaullist pique, pulled out of NATO’s unified military structure in 1966, although it remains part of the alliance and took a place on the military committee in 1995.

Had there ever been a land war in Europe, American forces would have done the overwhelming amount of the fighting, so why should Afghanistan and future armed clashes be any different? NATO forces were never deployed in a war zone during the cold war, so the inequalities within the organization were masked...

For now...we must also look to expand appropriate roles for NATO members not inclined toward combat. One option is sea power. Navies make port visits, they protect sea lanes, they allow for access during humanitarian emergencies. The French, Dutch, Norwegians, Germans and Spanish have all been making serious investments in new ships, especially frigates. With the United States Navy concentrating on competition from China in the Pacific, NATO could become the primary naval force to patrol the North Atlantic and Mediterranean...

I especially like that last paragraph. The Euros have very decent navies (Italians too); giving them more maritime responsibility might also allow Canada to reduce our "blue water" (as opposed to off-shore) naval efforts, i.e. destroyers and frigates. I really do not see the need for a significant and expensive Canadian contribution to allies in distant waters. After all it's primarily the Army that our governments use for important foreign policy effects (see Somalia, Balkans, Afstan etc.). It certainly needs to be larger and to have greater budgetary investment.

But, of course, the Navy would scream horribly at any reduced role (look at their determined struggle to retain a submarine capabilty). And building and refitting major naval vessels in Canada is a vote-grabber that no party is ever likely to reliquish.

The Economist, for its part, has a major article on NATO, with nice charts. Note that The Netherlands' defence spending is US $11.1 billion while Canada's is US $18.5 billion. The Netherlands' population is almost exactly half Canada's 33 million. So on a per capita basis their defence budget would be US $22.2 billion. The war mongers.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at March 27, 2008 07:36 PM