On April 42009 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will celebrate its 60th anniversary. The future course of NATO is something that is going to be discussed and debated by those in the White House in the coming months. Last week it was discussed and debated by Pepperdine University School of Public Policy professors.
On Nov. 5 professors Robert Kaufman and James Coyle debated the role and purpose of NATO at the Drescher Graduate Campus in Malibu. Kaufman and Coyle argued for and against the role of NATO and its role in the Security Structure of Europe and whether or not it is in America’s national interest to preserve the NATO alliance.
According to Coyle the debate was strictly an academic exercise so that all sides of the issue could be aired and that the facts could come out and be presented to students to make up their minds one way or the other.
Coyle stressed that he and Kaufman are in total agreement on NATO and both believe in a need for a strong NATO and U.S. involvement with NATO in Europe.
The debate began with two 10-minute statements and was followed by a series of three-minute questions and a one-minute response from each professor. The debate lasted 75 minutes and ended with a question and answer session. The debate was moderated by Pete Peterson School of Public Policy lecturer and executive director of Common Sense California.
Peterson framed the issues surrounding NATO as the debate began. “NATO has participated in a number of conflicts from Kosovo to Afghanistan but a growing number of critics have challenged the viability of this alliance as concerns of mission and membership seem to go unanswered he said.
The United States became a member of NATO in 1949 as a protective measure against a growing threat and the increasingly powerful Soviet Union. NATO is a collective military alliance headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The organization constitutes a system of collective defense where its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
NATO began with 12 member countries as a counterbalance to Soviet Union. The organization has now stretched its membership to 26 countries, including former Soviet satellite countries such as Romania, Poland, Bulgaria and others. NATO has proved itself to be arguably one of the most successful alliances in world history said Peterson.
The focus of the debate was on the role of NATO in the security structure of Europe. Coyle began by arguing for a reduced role of NATO, and contended that Europeans have relied on the United States and not shown any gratitude.
Not only is there an ideological gap between the Europeans and ourselves that is almost impossible to overcome – there is a military capacity gap that is almost totally insurmountable Coyle said.
The United States has been engaged in years on a revolution of military technology which the Europeans have sat out. As a result, the military capability of the U.S. is no longer able to work with the Europeans, according to Coyle.
Kaufman responded with a steadfast argument that the original position and the original geographic scope of NATO still plays a major role in European Security and in today’s world. According to Kaufman, NATO was never meant to serve outside the areas of Europe.
Had the U.S. committed itself to Europe in 1918 the way it did after 1945 Democracy in Eastern Europe could have consolidated itself rather then collapsed Kaufman said.
The last 60 years have been the most peaceful and successful in European history. Much of the peace and security that Europe has enjoyed is due to the ‘security umbrella’ that NATO provides, according to Kaufman.
The original purpose of NATO still stands – to keep the Russians out the Germans down and the Americans in Kaufman said.
Eventually the discussion shifted to the War on Terror and the role of NATO in a post 9/11-world. We are fighting terrorists with global reach Coyle said. There are countries willing to cooperate with us whether there is an alliance or not.”
Today the U.S. purpose for NATO is to coordinate in the War on Terrorism according to Coyle. Kaufman disagreed stating “the NATO alliance will not serve our problem with radical Islam.”
President-elect Barack Obama was chair of a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee whose central area of jurisdiction was NATO and also most of Europe. He never convened that subcommittee for discussion or debate according to Peterson.
“One wonders how much he truly does value NATO going forward Peterson said.
Peterson added that Mr. Obama has come out with strongly worded statements supporting NATO and has considered adding countries like Georgia and the Ukraine to the alliance.
After the debate, Coyle spoke to his public policy class about America’s need for NATO. We can try to do it all by ourselves or we can do it by building alliances and that’s where NATO comes in.”