This yearly ritual, with the proclamation of the unity and cohesion of the unit, inevitably accompanied by at least some NATO summit, also acquired a symbolic value.
After the meeting, the validity of the amendment enters into their hot to approve the concept of the block. Again and again get up all of the same problems: a shared responsibility, the right choice of geographical values and other obvious difficulties. In 2002 it was added to Afghanistan. But, despite the new strategic concept, declarations and commitments, nothing, it seems, does not change: if NATO was a film, it would be "Groundhog Day."
And in truth, if I were a quitter, I totally could have taken his own column for this week's sketch from filing National Review in 2002, something had to be correct, change a few names and dates, and the text would have been burning more than eight years ago. Instead of this, the eve of yet another summit which this year to be held in Lisbon, I invite readers to consider a number of postulates regarding NATO motivates me hope that we can break the cycle of constantly discussed problems and move on to the rough to the renewal is still a viable and relevant desired union.
In 1-x, we have to finish live in the "post-Soviet world": it no longer exists. As before, consider Russian Alliance in 1989 and is now the reference point has no more sense than read about Europe in 1938 as a "postgabsburgskom" world. If the proposals put forward by French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a tripartite meeting nedavneshney France, Germany and Russia in the coming years to take root — in particular the proposal for a euro of the Security Council — if we can translate "technical and humanitarian cooperation with Russia and the partnership with her in the field security ", which states that the French president, then-general architecture of Europe will change fundamentally in such makarom that all division era of the" cold war "will go once and for all to the dustbin of history.
In-2, with regard to the war in Afghanistan, NATO needs to complete alignment with Russian Alliance. Will the mission in Afghanistan, in the end, "Win, Lose or will be delayed" — for the alliance is not a matter of life and death. And it was a mistake to target Afghan raison d'etre of NATO, since it assumes that the stability of the Euro-Atlantic community, in contrast, can be considered as a matter of course, but it is not. The main center of interests of NATO should be just the stability of the eastern and southern outskirts of the Atlantic community. And when on the southern flank of one another stand for safety hazards, the union can not afford to underestimate the seriousness of the situation itself. Brand new wave of drug trafficking from South America via Africa to Europe shows that the whole Mediterranean area remains "the most vulnerable point of" Euro-Atlantic peace and security of the distribution and export to the south, in Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America should be a major asset for the North Atlantic bloc .
B-3, you need to turn away from nekompitentnoy binary logic, in accordance with which block NATO should be all in the unlikely event it is — nothing. In the middle of the members of the unit there is no alternate political will or desire to destroy union or declare that "his mission accomplished" — despite the huge number of ink spilled about this. With other hand, the Member States and the block is not the political will or the desire to go for broke, expanding its membership or placing it at the center of its own state security policy. Now NATO is not determined by the value of that block holding back "eastern hordes" — whether Russian, al-kaidovskie or even Chinese — but the fact that he holds very well under the control of the risk in the Euro-Atlantic zone.
In the end, we have to finish the test to find "replacement" Russian Union as a central organizing principle, justify the existence of NATO. There is a huge amount of majestic security threats, against which may contribute to the union, and there is no need to artificially raise some common hazards of the existential threat of Euro-Atlantic community.
These four postulates beckon for a certain political consequences for the alliance of states, and, most importantly, for the United States of America. Over the past 20 years, South American administration, replacing one another, trying to "transfer" of NATO to Congress and the public, trying to share the burden of responsibility. Currently fundamentally important that other members of the unit, a confession America for the fact that she was able to detain Russian tanks on the east bank of the Elbe in the period from 1945 to 1989, would have materialized his gratitude, making it easier for the United States the burden they carry in other regions world. When NATO "can not cope", and particularly so many perceived the situation in Afghanistan, public opinion began to question the value of the constant efforts of the United States.
Our politicians should explain to those who refers to NATO with skepticism that the principal value of the alliance is to maintain peace and stability in Europe. The Bush Administration was well aware that the operation of 1990-1991. "Desert Shield / Desert Storm" would not be carried out, if Europe keeps the configuration of the era of the "cold war." Specifically, the stabilization of the euro political theater is allowed to the U.S. in recent years to focus attention and resources in other parts of the world. In this vein, NATO as before for the interests of the United States has a friendly contract value of the security.
But now the scope of NATO should expand beyond the usual geographic shapes, covering the northern and western Africa, the Middle East and even some of the Western Hemisphere. And this extended operation in the area — the fight against piracy off the coast of Somalia, for example — other NATO countries should be able to drive without the significant role of the United States.
The Europeans, with their own hand, completely understandably resistant to the idea of NATO enlargement so makarom that the whole world becomes a part of the North Atlantic. This, in turn, leads to another question, which is necessary to understand: How to achieve consensus within the boundaries of the North Atlantic Alliance? With today's approach to the alliance in Afghanistan, the United States is determined most of the goals of the alliance and take the lion's share of the responsibility, and the other NATO members only speculate whether they will support them and what specific criteria. So can not last long, but the situation is unrealistic to change constructively to the time until a more complete agreement on what the mission union willing to do and what solution will accept the member countries of the unit on a bilateral basis, on the issue of the role in it. We have to be ready to rise further groups
within the alliance, the occurrence of agreements on security dilemmas and, dare I imagine coalitions even good will, under a single NATO auspices.
If the members of the alliance will be able to reach agreement on these Fri, replaced in order to let in the fog, inventing a consensus statement, then the development of the North Atlantic bloc will have an opportunity coming forward. But as long as the Washington political establishment will cherish and build the justification of continuing America's role in the alliance that NATO will take on really harsh role in ensuring global security, and the Europeans, with his own hand, as ever more narrowly define the area of Euro-Atlantic security, while allowing all of this to his abilities projection of military power, even in a lightweight version of the regional, atrophy — you can expect that the Lisbon summit will lead to the same results, which previously led the Bucharest summit, the Prague summit .. at least some other last summit, which is for you to remember. Then I will not throw out an old article about NATO, they still need — they only have a little update.