NATO: Empty Shell
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Lead Story, NATO — Jason, Managing Editor on February 12, 2008 @ 3:08 am CET
NATO ain’t what she used to be.
Eminent historian and strong critic of U.S. foreign policy Andrew Bacevich argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an empty shell.
At the end of the Cold War, some international relations scholars from the realist school — most notably John Mearsheimer — speculated that the lack of a plausible external threat would cause NATO to consume itself from within. For a while, Mearsheimer’s prediction looked pretty foolish, as NATO quickly expanded to encompass former members of the Warsaw Pact and as NATO, however fitfully, pushed a common peace enforcement policy in Bosnia and Kosovo.
But the stresses of long-term NATO operations in Afghanistan has torn NATO’s false front down, exposing the rot within. Some non-US NATO members such as Canada and the Netherlands have been “punching above their weight class” in Afghan operations while the strongest, notably including Germany, have indulged domestic constituencies to such an extent as to make their contributions either minimal or functionally useless.
The political benefits of NATO as a symbolic club of western democracies will probably keep the organization itself alive. But as a functional military organization, NATO no longer exists. Its consensus-based decision-making procedures make it unlikely that NATO can be reformed.
1 Jay_C
February 12, 2008 @ 4:03 pm CETI agree, NATO is an empty shell, but what do you think that mean for us as a Country? How should we as a Country take action if we believe this is the case? Should we do anything?
2 Jason
February 12, 2008 @ 5:40 pm CETI am not sure what Bacevich would prefer. (His excellent record of scholarship has unfortunately been somewhat undermined by BDS in recent years.) I would say that we should lower our expectations for multilateralism in the post-Cold War era. We should recognize that many of our allies are simply not up to the task politically, economically, or militarily. We have to pick our own battles more carefully in light of the fact that we cannot count on much real backup from NATO.
But, unlike Voldemort, we should avoid overcompensating and recognize that we can’t simply ignore the problem and leave a global power vacuum that would be exploited by enemies and rivals by undertaking an isolationist (ex-CUSE me, "non-interventionist") approach.
3 Jay_C
February 12, 2008 @ 7:59 pm CETI find it extremely Ironic (and rather funny) that you post on the internet, for the world to see, yet you use subject alias’ Voldemort = Ron Paul, to hide your opinions from those that may be critical of what you have to say. Why not lock the site down and require a username and password for those that are “worthy” of reading or posting opinions to what you write? Also, just because I support Ron Paul doesn’t mean I and a lemming and beleive everything he has to say. The tone in your response sounded as if you were waiting for me to respond with a Ron Paul talking point, when in fact it was a real question. I am not sure what the answer is either, and I’m not sure that just pulling out of NATO is the answer, that sounds a little drastic to me.
4 David
February 12, 2008 @ 8:16 pm CETLooked at strategically Nato serves the US interest, even without a large European military contingent. Europe is a classic “buffer zone” between the US and a potentially hostile Russia. If Russia begins to threaten the west anew, something which looks more likely every day, it will start in Europe.
If Russia, or any other power hostile to the US, manages to bring Europe into its sphere of influence it will then have control of an area with a population and economy roughly similar to that of the US. If that power then wished to set out to oppose the US it would be doing so from a position of near equality.
The current military weakness of Europe exposes the continent to the risk of a salami-slicing takeover by an increasingly powerful Russia. Anchoring Europe in a US based and led defence system is a safeguard against this happening. Clearly a militarily powerful Europe would be a bigger safeguard, but this would carry risks from a US perspective of a Europe that might want to go it alone, potentially in opposition to the US.
5 Jay_C
February 13, 2008 @ 5:46 pm CETAs I said above, I dongree with Paul on his pulling out of NATO idea, but although sarcastic, you do bring up a valid difference being a Isolationinst and a Non-intervetionist.The term isolationist typically refers to the ideology that believes this nation should not trade or deal with in any way with other nations. The term non-interventionist typically refers to the ideology that believes it is not the role of this nation to “alter or abolish” governments of other nations; or to interfere in anyway with the internal affairs of other nations unless we want to end up with foreigners interfering in the internal affairs of this nation. There is a distinct, albeit thin line, between the two doctrines.
6 Jason
February 13, 2008 @ 6:09 pm CETThe trouble with the "non-interventionist" theme that is repeated ad nauseum by Voldemort and his fans is that it doesn’t spell out what it means beyond the vaguest generalities. Voldemort opposed "regime change" in Iraq, but supported it in Afghanistan, so there is no consistent notion of what the underlying foreign policy philosophy would be. "Non-interventionism" is not actually an "ideology", but rather just a vague marketing label with nothingness underneath. What about when another country’s government is supporting non-state groups that attack us? Does "non-interventionism" block us from responding or not? What about when there is a genocide in another country — does "non-interventionism" allow us to respond or are we supposed to just sit by and watch it happen?
As for the supposed support for free trade, Voldemort is vague in this area as well. He and his fans decry the system of treaties that forces reciprocity in trade practices and promise to commit the U.S. to a no-tariff policy unilaterally. But when I have confronted them with questions about how Voldemort’s vaguely formed ideas would respond to the potential for exploitation as other countries took the opportunity to impose tariffs while enjoying access to the unilaterally no-tariff U.S. market, they YET AGAIN refuse to engage the discussion.
Until Voldemort and his fans address these kinds of questions, foreign policy remains YET ANOTHER area where they cannot be taken seriously. “Non-interventionism” is treated as a joke because right now it IS a joke — nothing more than a vague marketing label that tells essentially nothing about what is actually inside.
7 Jay_C
February 14, 2008 @ 9:02 pm CETOk, even, for the sake of argument, I give you that the term "non-interventionist", is a vague marketing label. From what you just wrote above it sounds like you agree that he is not saying that we should cut off trade or dealings with in any way with other nations? (AKA Be isolationists) Rather, your focus above is a problem with the term is misleading and vague, not evidence that he is an isolationist.
8 Jason
February 14, 2008 @ 9:11 pm CETI don’t think that Voldemort intends to be an isolationist. I do believe that may be the unintended consequence of his poorly considered policies, however. Because he does not specify ANY which international organizations he would pull out of, which he would modify and how, and which situations could provoke modifications to his approach to trade policy, it is difficult to be sure.
It is quite possible that if Voldemort’s policies were to be enacted, the net effect would be isolationism. Or it might be similar to the status quo with only marginal changes. Or it might be almost anything in between. As with many other issue areas, his deliberate and persistent refusal to move past vaguely self-serving talking points is frustrating and prevents me from taking a charitable view towards his arguments.
In regards to military policy, the balance of evidence is that “isolationist” is a fair term given his sweeping, Chomsky-esque condemnations of American “imperialism”. In regards to trade policy, it is clear that he would LIKE to have free trade, but that he has not bothered to think through the details of how free trade could actually be achieved and exploitation of U.S. openness prevented.
I know that those seeking to avoid the “isolationist” moniker like to conflate trade and military policy to do so, but I think that serves only to maximize the ambiguity in the marketing term and does nothing useful to actually clarify the separable policy debates in these two areas.
I believe in what John Ikenberry called a “self-restraining hegemon” version of U.S. military policy. That means retaining a willingness to intervene when necessary to protect fundamental national interests (defined more broadly than Voldemort seems to) as well as fundamental humanitarian values such as the prevention of genocide. This means that I find his military policy to be irresponsibly “isolationist” insofar as it SEEMS (reading the tea leaves through the vagueness) to prohibit the United States from responding to a genocide.
In regards to free trade, I believe in it provided that it is RECIPROCAL. My critique of Voldemort’s position is that he doesn’t bother even considering the reciprocity problem and takes a sweeping, label-driven approach that would SEEM (again reading the tea leaves) to be unilateral and unconditional and therefore vulnerable to exploitation and unfairness and zero attention to environmental and labor externalities.
9 Robert E.
February 14, 2008 @ 9:45 pm CETJason, in regards to free trade and more particularly import tarrifs, what you apparently fail to grasp is that invariably the one area of a national economy which is hurt most by such policies is exports, with the consumer coming up a close second.
Take steel for instance. By burdening this low value-added commodity with punitive tarrifs, the gummint has made all high value added industries which use steel as a major raw material (automotive, farm equipment, heavy machinery etc.) spectacularly uncompetitive internationally. On top of that the domestic customer of these same industries is forced to pay punitive prices for these products thereby significantly reducing in-country sales volumes as well.
To put it differently, your desired RECIPROCITY is in fact completely unavoidable. Even an apparent unilateral removal of tarrifs therefore carries with it the inevitable result of reciprocal economic benefits in the form of commensurately larger sales volumes in both export and domestic markets.
Tarriffs only serve to protect large monolithic industries from having to stay competitive in an open market and keep up with newly developing production methods and technologies of their better competitors.
Examples of what benefits which accrues to both producer and customers in industries with few or no tarriff protections abound. Cell phones and computers come to mind.
10 Jason
February 15, 2008 @ 8:21 am CETI don’t see how reciprocity happens automatically. If the United States were to commit unilaterally to a zero-tariff import policy, what would prevent other countries from saying, "oh joy" as they protected their import markets against our manufactured goods? Even your (highly debateable) scenario about steel only covers tariffs on raw materials, not finished end products.
Agricultural tariffs are another area that could seriously damage the United States. Under a unilateral approach, Argentina would be free to undercut U.S. farmers and ranchers in wheat and beef, further damaging their already tenuous position. Meanwhile, Argentina would be able to protect its domestic farmers and ranchers by placing tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports with impunity.
Sorry, I don’t believe in magic wands and you’re going to have to do much more than just assert that reciprocity will happen automatically if you want to convince anyone. Bald assertions offered without supporting evidence are not adequate to overcome the presumption that must weigh against any proposed change, especially ones as radical, far-reaching, disruptive, and irreversible as those proposed by Voldemort.
11 Robert E.
February 15, 2008 @ 2:31 pm CETOK Jason, I guess I was too subtle here. The reciprocity I was referring to comes not from an equal lowering of tarriffs by other nations at all. Instead, it comes from the practical COMPETITIVE effect of unilaterally removing protective tarriffs.
Let’s take steel again as the example. To be fair, I must include some other libertarian proposals which have a direct impact here as well, for the simple reason that they form part of a complete integrated economic approach. One can’t just lift (argue about) one single element of a comprehense and integrated set of proposals.
Unilaterally removing import tarriffs will force antiquated low value added ("LVA") US steel producers to either modernize their plants and technology or get out of the business. It will also put US manufacturers of such high value added ("HVA") goods as automobiles, heavy machinery etc. in the position of being to compete effectively in foreign markets. Exports therefore go up dramatically. Finally, domestic consumers will be able to buy these goods without having to subsidize a bunch of antiquated steel producers who are either too lazy or too stupid to compete in the (open) world markets. HVA manufacturers will also be able to hire and retrain any good workers who are laid off by steel plants.
If any foreign nation now attempt to opportunisticall dump its steel at subsidized (below cost) prices in the the US market, the joy will be very short lived. First, they would have to finance this somehow by openly taxing their citizens directly or by subversively taxing them through inflation (printing of fiat currency). Neither option can be sustained for any meaningful length of time, especially not when trying to produce in the massive volumes which the US manufacturers can absorb.
On top of that, these steel dumping nations face an even bigger problem. In the more profitable and labor intensive area of HVA manufactured goods, they now have to compete against US producers who are equipped with the latest technologies AND are benefitting directly from the below cost steel which they are able to buy at the expense of those very same dumping exporters.
The US consumer benefits in the same way by being able to buy HVA goods at far better prices and on top of that not having to suffer the added insult of paying for tarriffs through taxation or inflation.
Yes, some will argue that it is not lack of technology, but high labor cost which hobbles the US steel producers. Even if one takes this to be true, it immediately begs the question why those costs are so high. The culprit is of course the insanely high government expenditures caused by a combination of wars, empire, "do gooder" entitlements, bloated bureaucracies, endless other boondoggles and the resulting high (income) tax burden required to fund them.
All libertarian platforms contain proposals for substantial scaling back or outright discontinuation of such activities by all levels of government. The scope may vary widely between say what Cato proposes and what RP advocates, but the principle is the same.
The net effect of unilateral removal of tarriffs, especially if this strategy is implemented with a carefully considered tactical approach, is therefore a rapid and lasting improvement for both the domestic manufacturer and consumer at the expense of their respective foreign counterparts.
The only victims, if you can call them that, are (a) any US steel producer who fails to modernize and (b) the citizens of any steel dumping nation who have to pay for their export subsidies. Neither warrant much concern on the part of US citizens and these "victims" most certainly do not deserve to be artificially propped up with funds taken from thos US citizens by force of taxation.
Enough already ….
12 Jason
February 15, 2008 @ 7:57 pm CETRobert, once again, you are just posting assertions without evidence, along with a subtle dig at me thrown in at the beginning. Where do you believe the capitalization for this sudden technological upgrade is going to come from? Why do you believe that the U.S. market will alone be enough to make it profitable to do so (since U.S. products, even if they are of moderately higher quality, will be priced out of protected markets overseas by virtue of their exploitation of the opportunity to impose tariffs without any consequences)? Where is your evidence that there would actually be a significant qualitative advantage at all? What even makes you assume that worldwide consumers are willing to pay for highest quality at all? The massive popularity of cheap products from China and the new Tata (sp?) automobile in India indicates quite the opposite of the assumption you make.
Also, your assertion that other countries’ reliance on "fiat money" would be unsustainable assumes the conclusion that fiat money is bad. That is an argument, not an objective fact, and it is one of the most poorly evidenced arguments in the whole slate of the Voldemortist pantheon. It is once again an argument from a scary label, bereft of explanation, evidence, or analysis. to use it as the linchpin of your claim that unilateral free trade will intrinsically result in reciprocity simply compounds one logical error with another.
You really need to move beyond the scary labels as replacements for arguments and you really need to start providing evidence for your assertions if you want to be seen as doing anything more than just regurgitating talking points.
Historically, I am on solid ground here. When there is an opportunity to impose tariffs without fear of reciprocal tariffs, states usually do so. They seem able to sustain such market protections over long periods of time unless there is some institutional pressure (e.g. WTO or trade agreements like NAFTA — the very things that Voldemort wants to abolish in favor of a purely unilateral approach) forcing them to engage in some degree reciprocal openness. On their face, your assertions do not appear to have any empirical support. I’d therefore like to see your evidence rather than just more restatements of assertions that the way that the world has worked will magically change in Voldemort or CATO is suddenly put in charge.
13 Jay_C
February 15, 2008 @ 8:30 pm CETWow! I’d really like to see this kind of detailed debate about all the candidates. Nobody said we aren’t thoughtful (on both sides of this argument!) Doing a quick search on this site, I’ve seen a quite a few postings regarding McCain and some contain the word "economy", but not much heated debate about his ideas / or lack thereof. Let’s take a look at McCain and his positions on improving the economy, I haven’t heard much about him and his opinions. For a presidential candidate he doesn’t seem all that knowledgeable…thoughts?
14 C Stanley
February 15, 2008 @ 8:56 pm CETJay_C, I’m not sure how much of that question was serious and how much was snark, but FWIW here’s my response as a Republican who voted McCain in the primary and will do so in the general…
I can sum up what I look for on economic policy in a candidate in two words: fiscal responsibility. McCain’s always been a deficit hawk with a tendency to support tax cuts when they’re reasonable and balanced with spending restraint. He’s opposed pork and done so in action as well as words. That tells me all I really need to know about his knowledge of economics- because I’d prefer a conservative economic policy that tilts toward keeping government out of the way of the private sector.
15 Jay_C
February 15, 2008 @ 9:12 pm CETNo, not sarcastic. I heard in one of the debates McCain attempting to describe his economic policy. I didn’t hear any substance at all in his response, just a list of names (Jack Kemp, etc). It’s fascinating that McCain is not only relying on his "best friends" and their opinions about economic policy, but he doesn’t seem know what it is they think. Isn’t Jack Kemp one of these "crazy guys" that likes the idea of a gold standard?
16 C Stanley
February 15, 2008 @ 9:27 pm CETOK, what I meant about sarcasm was that I thought I noted a tinge of accusation that Ron Paul’s supporters were being held to a higher standard. To whatever degree that that might be true, I think it’s because Paul does advocate more radical change and there’s a greater need to explain the positions and the likely consequences of his policies.
As for Kemp, I’m pretty sure that it’s not his advocacy of the gold standard that McCain is referring to, but his affiliation with supply side Reaganomics. That is a good point though, and certainly McCain will need to be more explicit as the campaign unfolds.
17 Jay_C
February 15, 2008 @ 9:34 pm CETI just did a quick search on google and found this:
"But it was Mr. Kemp and his economic proposals that brought in the deep-pocket businessmen with contributions to pay the rent and salaries. They liked his pro-business attitudes, even his suggestion that monetary reform include a return to the gold standard.’
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E3D91538F932A3575AC0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
18 C Stanley
February 15, 2008 @ 10:30 pm CETYes, there’s no doubt that Kemp was for that back then, but I’m not sure if his position has changed/evolved since then. Most in the GOP have moved beyond that debate, and the further we get from the time that we had the gold standard, the harder it becomes to imagine a transition back to it. I remember reading an article which showed that the stock market had risen something like 700 % while in the same time period, prices for everyday commodities had risen 200% (roughly- I’m going on memory.) So, the point was that if we returned to a gold standard, you’d preserve the ability to buy gold but you’d actually LOSE a lot of buying power for real goods and services other than gold- it would have a huge deflationary effect. I think that it’s very hard to turn back- and so I think it makes a lot more sense to address the real problem of runaway deficit spending rather than trying to address it by using a gold standard.
19 Jay_C
February 16, 2008 @ 3:33 am CETSorry, did another quick search, here is a more recent story.
"Whether calls for a gold standard get traction in Washington remains to be seen. Jack Kemp, the Republican Party’s vice-presidential nominee in 1996 and the leader of its growth wing for 25 years, this summer also called for a gold link to the dollar, in part so that America avoids the deflation of assets that is sinking Japan’s economy. "
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/strategist-sees-gold-lining-jumpy/story.aspx?guid=%7B08429168%2D8318%2D476F%2DB924%2DBF920931A96C%7D
20 Jay_C
February 16, 2008 @ 3:56 am CETJust to be clear, I am not suggesting that Kemp would recommend reopening of the "gold standard" to McCain. Just poinitng out a clear match between Paul’s monetary policy beliefs, and McCains economic adviser’s beliefs. Logically, this should make Paul’s ideas either look less "crazy" or Mcacains choice of advisors just as crazy as a Paul Critic would see Paul.
21 Jay_C
February 16, 2008 @ 4:02 am CETWell, at least we both agree that runaway deficit spending is a problem that needs to be regned in!