The Opposite Attraction between Mars and Venus:Sustaining NATO for European and American Security by Hannah-Sophie Wahle
Background on NATO• Founded on April 4, 1949 by 12 countries• Article V: An attack against one member is an attack against all• Purpose: " Keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down"
Theoretical Framework• Realism: Anarchy, sovereign states, distrust, balance-of-power, relative gains, competition• Liberalism: Cooperation, institutionalization, information exchange • Democratic Peace Theory: Democracies never fight each other
Nationalism• European inward look on domestic issues to focus on EU institution building• U.S. focus on intervention and global player• Gaullism: French attempts for independent security • France withdrew in 1966
Power• Historically: U.S. isolationism vs. European colonialism and Machtpolitk• Now: American hegemony vs. European tiredness of war • Refusal of ICC and Kyoto Protocol vs. EU institution building• Power as dominance vs. power as a role model
Governance• Colin Powell in 1988: "where you have sixteen nations, all each sovereign, there will be differences and there will be heated debate and discussion from time to time"• Consensus-Building model encounters difficulty in NATO with its current 28 members• Proposals for flexible response and bilateral agreements under NATo umbrella
Burden Sharing• Eastern European members have less resources to offer and Western European countries were depleted by WWII• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warns about the discontent of U.S. taxpayers who support Europes free ride• Robert Kagan describes the labor division as the "U.S. making the dinner and the Europeans washing the dishes"
Inequalities Explained• The Cold War and interventions lead to the U.S. military build up• Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) limits European states budget deficit to 3%• U.S. views Europe as protectorate, not competitor• Intangible non-military assets -such as soft skills, information and decision-making efforts, and diplomacy -are less factored in
Expansion• Eastern European countries to join the greater Europe and be shielded from any return to Communism• Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) and Partnership for Peace overlap with non-NATO, non-EU states and cause the loss of oversights and differences in objectives• Would NATO risk NYC for Warsaw or New Delhi?
European Failure to Establish Independent Security• The French-German Army, Western Union Defense Organization, the Berlin-Plus Agreement, the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDP), the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP)• Comfort under U.S. security umbrella• Lack of unity in Europe and strength of sovereignty• Absence of a European leader due to rotating presidency
The Russian Question• Can Russia be trusted already?• Does Russia even want to be part of NATO?• Would Russia be more aggressive if denied?
NATO, Kosovo & Libya• Kosovo: Europe excelled at peace-building efforts after the end of the war• Libya: Wide European intervention especially by France and England, but there was no coherent European action
Reasons for NATOs Endurance UNITED STATES EUROPEAN MEMBERS Presence in Europe Use of U.S. capabilitiesEurope "Whole and free" Building of welfare state (Marshall Plan)Use of Europes diplomatic Limited defense spending efforts Unilateralism and Peacebuilder hegemony Legitimacy Protection
The EndPlease refer to the website for further details.