Allied With the Past
With the prospect of continued chaos in Iraq looming large and a second Bush victory in the bag, it is fair to say that the future direction of international politics is more uncertain now than at any time since the end of the Cold War. In particular, given the extent to which President Bush campaigned on a 'go it alone if necessary' foreign policy platform, the outlook for formal alliances and international institutions seems bleak.
One would be forgiven, then, for assuming that the mood amongst senior figures at NATO - the alliance so divided in the run-up to Saddam Hussein's ousting - must also be fairly bleak.
Yet if John Colston, Assistant Secretary General of that alliance, is considered in any way representative, such an assessment would be wholly wrong. For, though keen to stress himself to be a 'realist' when speaking to The Oxford Student last week, Colston (genuinely, it appeared) believes NATO can still play an important role in geopolitical affairs. He outlined just what it is he perceives the purpose of the organisation in today's world to be.
"Well NATO was established 55 years ago, primarily as a means of enabling the nations of North America and Western Europe to defend themselves against what was seen as the threat of a massive attack from the East. Yet those reasons are now long gone, and we work in close co-operation with partner countries to the East.
"The purpose of NATO now - as the allies themselves see it - is to try to maintain stability and security in what remains a very unstable and insecure world, but the threats today are the threats of regional instability, cross-border crime, and terrorism."
So has the body ceased merely to perform the functions of a defensive alliance?
"No, it is a defensive alliance, but a defensive alliance with 'defensive' now defined much more broadly - to include defence of allies' interests wherever they may be threatened: not merely defending their own territories, but defending their own interests, potentially on a global scale."
This is an interpretation of 'defence', though, that has caused more than a little 'debate' across the planet over the past two years - and, indeed, has been in part responsible for major splits within the North Atlantic alliance itself (NATO did not sanction the Iraq invasion). What did Colston think was the reasoning behind the stances of Messrs Chirac, Schröder and other anti-war leaders?
"I think there are a number of reasons why some European nations took a different view to the United States and other European nations, and I think those are things which will be corrected and addressed over time.
"The threat to national security and national interests which the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, saw represented by Saddam's regime did not seem as acute in Berlin or in Paris as it did in London and Washington.
"I think there was also a degree of frustration in Paris and Berlin that the United States was choosing to act unilaterally, with US-led coalitions, rather than seeking to work through the established mechanisms of the United Nations - or indeed of NATO itself. You saw from Chirac a difference both of tactics and of principle."
Did he fear that some in Europe (Chirac himself, perhaps) desired the continent to be a rival to the United States?
"I've no doubt that some people do see Europe as a potential counterbalance; but I think those who do are making a mistake. The kinds of challenges to our security that are apparent today can only properly be addressed if the United States and Europe are working together."
Yet many would argue that for this to happen a more multilateral, conciliatory approach from the United States needs to be forthcoming - after all, Europe can't be expected to dutifully 'cling to the coattails' of any US foreign policy adventure, no matter how apparently misguided.
We were speaking on the day before Americans went to the polls, and Colston outlined the type of approach he hoped to see from the White House over the next four years.
"I think that it is absolutely clear that the United States is stronger if it works with allies and if it works through alliances. I think [it] is very well aware of the first fact: both in Afghanistan and in Iraq - although it chose to work outside the framework of established alliances - it was very keen to involve other friendly countries in its military actions, even though that probably wasn't essential in military terms.
"I think that what we will find in a new US administration - and I say that whether it's a Bush administration or a Kerry administration - is a new effort to work through established means and mechanisms."
So 'coalitions of the willing', of the type favoured by the Bush administration post-September 11th 2001, are not the most desirable way for the world to be run?
"I think 'coalitions of the willing' - although they are bound to occur from time to time - are a second-best to working through established mechanisms, because if one works through NATO, for example (as the primary example of a multinational military organisation) then the rules of the house - the consensus principle - do require all agents, all nations within that organisation to deliberate very carefully on the action that they take.
"What this does mean for NATO, though, is that we will have to be prepared, politically and militarily, to act not simply as a peacekeeping force, but, when and if necessary, as a force which is able to intervene to make the peace, not simply to keep it."
Yet therein lies the dilemma that NATO faces: if it is to act militarily, it can only do so with unanimity, and with the active support of a certain superpower the other side of the Atlantic - one that shows few signs of tailoring its foreign policy stance to suit the needs of formal allies.
As such, the organisation seems doomed either to be a fig leaf or an irrelevancy. Colston may have seemed optimistic when we spoke; a reminder: that was before November 2nd.
John Colston was in Oxford to address the University's United Nations Association. For more information visit: www.ouuna.org
18th Nov 2004