INTRODUCTION Narrator: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, celebrates the 60th anniversary of its founding on April 4, 2009. In 1949, NATO's mission was clear. Today, NATO faces a different world in which the Cold War has ended and a range of new challenges are combining to produce a never-before-seen security environment.
To help us understand these challenges and the role of NATO, we talked with Dr. Kenneth Moss, Chairman of the National Security Studies Department at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Moss is an expert on the history of U.S. foreign policy, relations between government and industry, and has a unique perspective on the American Congressional role in foreign policy, having worked on Capitol Hill and in private and public sector roles on transatlantic security issues. He is participating in a speaking tour as part of the U.S. State Department's activities celebrating NATO's 60th anniversary. As a preview of his visit to France and Germany, we talked with Dr. Moss about a range of subjects. Following are his comments on issues such as the Obama Administration's approach to NATO, the evolving strategic challenges facing the alliance, and relations with Russia. CHAPTER ONE: The Obama Administration's foreign policy orientation regarding NATO Narrator: President Obama will attend NATO's 60th anniversary Summit in France and Germany in April. As one of his first major overseas trips and most visible diplomatic engagement yet with a group of foreign leaders, the question being asked is what the world can expect from the Obama Administration's foreign policy. Is there a new orientation?
Dr. Kenneth Moss: I think there is a new orientation. I think with NATO the administration is probably still looking at what it intends to seek from the alliance.
It seemed that many times when I was in Europe, you know you might not get much agreement on many things but there was generally pretty strong agreement on the criticism of George W. Bush. They'll miss him. You know, this President is – it will be much harder for them to be critical of because he, first of all, tends to represent a view or image of the United States which comes closer to the ideal that many of them would like to have of the U.S. ; and he speaks a vocabulary that they more easily understand. It will be much more difficult to disagree with him. There is already this quandary, you know, we know the President's going to ask more about Afghanistan and NATO. How do you say no to him? Or if you don't want to say no, what do you offer in place. That's a tougher question. Clearly, the primary task in front of the administration right now in terms of how it sees NATO is Afghanistan. And it obviously would like the alliance in a collective sense to be able to do more, contribute more forces, perhaps contribute more resources and capabilities in some of the other missions that are in Afghanistan. But it realizes there are economic restraints, that the economic crisis that has affected the United States if anything is affecting Europe more. There are budgetary problems. And that with a number of NATO countries, there is a combination of constitutional restraint along with the political realities in any particular country - in a sense, can a government sell to its public the importance of a continued role for its forces in Afghanistan.
Clearly the administration would like to find a hurdle for as many of those challenges as possible. I don't think they have found the formula yet as to how to do that. And of course that then brings you to the broader question of what is NATO's larger function. The Obama Administration is going, yes, to continue to look at NATO in terms of what customarily has been called “out-of-area” “non-traditional” types of missions. But I think in doing that, it's going to have to reconcile its own objectives along side the limitations that will factor into US strategy in the coming years because of the budget and economic considerations; because of the size of US forces and whether or not we will increase them that much; and then the similar boundaries that play with our NATO allies. Can you continue to work in an alliance under the expectation that it will be primarily an instrument to provide forces and other capabilities in out-of-area missions, or can you perhaps approach the alliance and not necessarily use it or exploit it, but try to find within it a forum in which frankly the United States and a number of NATO countries should address some of the strategic questions that face us in the 21st century.
CHAPTER TWO: NATO's purpose – the scope of non-traditional operations Narrator: In recent years, events such as the 2004 Asian Tsunami and the devastation to Burma's delta region caused Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 have raised the profile of the military role in emergencies and natural disasters. What are the key questions confronting NATO, for example related to humanitarian emergencies?
Dr. Kenneth Moss: Whether or not humanitarian missions require us to revisit the traditional standards or criteria for intervention that have been in place largely since the end of the second world war. I am not suggesting here that NATO become a replacement or substitute for the United Nations and I think most NATO members would want the UN mandate, UN umbrella before it actually would act. But I think it can be a very good setting where you can discuss some of these questions amongst countries that frankly have the larger assets or capabilities in terms of conducting those types of operations. In the sense of assets, if you look at NATO and then some other countries, yes, including China and Russia, and then traditional U.S. allies such as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand to a lesser extent. These are countries that have many of the assets that are potentially useable in these types of missions and that of course opens questions as to how much NATO should expand its dialogue with other states in the international community. And that, too, is an open question.
But, since the United States and Europe, do still share in many ways a similar strategic outlook on the world, at least based on our desires for democracy, a movement towards a more open economy and the value and merit of each individual and human rights. This is a very good setting to explore those issues and where at least I think proposals can be discussed that then can be carried forth into broader fora such as the United Nations or other settings.
So, yes it might be a humanitarian mission with teeth. I think particularly this administration would want to see it developed under the umbrella of multilateral approval through the UN, through the consent of international law as much as possible and which in some ways is the distinction from certainly the style or modus operandi that we have seen in recent years in U.S. policy.
CHAPTER THREE: NATO's purpose – major issues confronting the alliance Narrator: The scope of non-traditional operations is a growing discussion topic among NATO member nations. The potential for humanitarian emergencies on a larger scale has grown as new security threats have emerged. As a result, NATO faces a new and different set of challenges than in the past. How can NATO come to grips with the new realities affecting security?
Dr. Kenneth Moss: You have a whole range of issues that are already in place, certainly emerging, such as climate, demography, environment, certainly related to climate but also it has its own particular characteristics separate from that, natural resources and I'm not only talking about oil but, for example, water, energy in other forms besides oil. What some call “transnational issues” because they certainly fall out of the boundaries or limits of traditional states. And yet, of course, NATO is an organization founded in the middle of the twentieth century after the second world war and the beginning of the Cold War composed of states concerned at that time very much with traditional state issues of security and protection of borders and collective security and how can you in a sense enable this alliance to adapt or to change itself in ways that it still can play a constructive part in the international community and be a setting where the United States, it's European, and one should add North American ally Canada, can discuss these issues but perhaps also discuss them with other countries whether it's the NATO-Russia Council with Russia or in other settings that would involve non-NATO members. These are definitely uncharted waters and but I think if the United States is going to find any future for NATO, it has to look at it in ways beyond traditional military missions. It has to bring in those issues, those types of transnational developments, that really in many ways are going to be frequent determinants in the future of whether or not United States and other governments have to act through economic and diplomatic intervention and various forms of assistance, or whether ultimately we have to resort to some form of military force. And then of course, what does one do after you have used military force. The aftermath – stabilization, reconstruction – these are very much part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan today, but at a much greater scale, these are the types of questions that would be facing alliance members worldwide.
