"Depending upon whom you talk to, NATO's glass is either half-full or half-empty. Some on both sides of the Atlantic have raised concerns about the future roles and missions of NATO and NATO's relevance in the post-September 11 world," says Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin. "But the fact remains that NATO must address a number of crucial issues no later than the November Prague summit." This article is adapted from remarks by Senator Levin at a committee hearing February 28 on the future of NATO.

In just nine months, NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Prague to make a decision on enlargement of the Alliance and to focus on a number of other crucial areas.

Depending upon whom you talk to, NATO's glass is either half-full or half-empty. Some on both sides of the Atlantic have raised concerns about the future roles and missions of NATO and NATO's relevance in the post-September 11 world. Some have even cited NATO's invocation of Article 5 for the first time in its history, and the numerous offers by NATO members to participate in the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, as a factor demonstrating NATO's weakness because the United States has not seen fit to take up most of those offers.

I am reminded of a statement by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson upon the conclusion of the meeting of NATO's Heads of State and Government in June of last year that "NATO's credibility is its capability." He made that statement to exhort the Alliance's European members to spend more and [spend] more wisely on defense. That exhortation has not borne fruit because Lord Robertson said publicly last month that "the truth is that Europe remains a military pygmy." To put the issue in some context, the $48 billion [$48,000 million] annual increase requested by President Bush for the defense budget, constitutes 150 percent of the total defense spending of the United Kingdom or France, the next largest NATO member states defense budgets after the United States.

I must admit that I am from the glass is half-full camp. I am a strong supporter of NATO -- the most successful Alliance in the history of the world. NATO successfully deterred an attack by the former Soviet Union and, also very importantly, it helped to keep the peace among the nations of Western Europe for five decades.

In recent years, NATO forces fired shots in anger for the first time in its history and brought a negotiated end to the conflict in Bosnia. NATO conducted an air war against Serbian security forces and reversed ethnic cleansing for the first time in history. Even though the United States carried out the bulk of the Kosovo air campaign, I believe it was the moral strength and cohesion of 19 sovereign nations that led to the successful conclusion of the conflict.

At the present time, the Alliance is conducting three peacekeeping operations in the Balkans -- in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in Macedonia. The Europeans are providing the bulk of the forces for these operations and the overwhelming majority of the civil assistance and financial support for those countries. Pursuant to NATO's invocation of Article 5 in response to the horrendous terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, NATO Airborne Early Warning aircraft were deployed to patrol the skies over America and NATO's Standing Naval Forces were deployed to the eastern Mediterranean at the United States' request.

But the fact remains that NATO must address a number of crucial issues no later than the November Prague summit. Today, we begin our consideration of all of these issues.

Back to top | Contents, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, March 2002 | IIP E-Journals | IIP Home