Balkanalysis.com

NATO’s Transformation: the Benefits and Headaches of Expansion

9/11 was a lifesaver for NATO. At the time catastrophe struck, the unraveling fiasco in Kosovo was already bringing increased attention on the alliance’s essential role and value. Having been unconvincingly transformed from an alliance of mutual self-defense into one of humanitarian intervention, NATO might have been put back on life support- especially considering that newly-elected president George W. Bush was at the time calling for a more “humble” foreign policy.

However, the events of 9/11 ended that plan and unleashed endless imperialistic fantasies and military intervention. NATO was given its second reprieve in just over 2 years. It was suddenly transformed into a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude for the war on terror, a mandate which it appears to be fulfilling rather ambivalently.

While its foundational fears are long dead, Cold War dinosaurs in the Bush Administration survive and continue to push NATO expansion in countries bordering on Russia. This sends mixed signals not only to the Russians but to the wider Western public, which might like to know exactly what its tax dollars are subsidizing the alliance to do. Indeed, does NATO exist to fight (Islamic) terror, or to contain Russia?Helping to keep the good times rolling for military contractors, however, is beginning to strain the credibility of NATO itself. The US government wants it to be ready for quick deployment anywhere in the world. However, by soliciting members in the Caucasus and beyond, how can NATO in any way be deemed the “North-Atlantic” alliance? Should they not just put the organization out of its misery and rename it as the “US World Auxiliary Army,” or something similar?

Growing Pains

However, not just the name but also the operating procedures of this monstrosity will have to be revised, should its continued existence be guaranteed. The policy of consensual agreement proved hard enough with Kosovo in 1999. Then, there were only 19 member states; next year there will be 26. Although NATO is now trumpeting its new “rapid reaction force,” the speed of deployment is fundamentally dependent on the speed of diplomatic agreement- something which can’t be very fast when so many governments need be consulted first.

Second, the issue of having too many chefs in the kitchen has emerged with recent controversies over the trustworthiness of certain officials in key positions in countries like Slovakia and Bulgaria. The threats were judged serious enough in these cases to force NATO leaders to consider limiting these incoming members’ security clearances. While these particular cases have been resolved, the potential for similar headaches remains, hypothetically with any of the former Soviet new members.

Also, the danger of redundancy is becoming greater. American taxpayers, already saddled with ever-increasing costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, don’t necessarily want to pay for Europe’s defense when the EU is perfectly capable of doing so for itself. In the end, the only true supporters of NATO are the big military contractors and their cronies in the Bush Administration. However, the world is not infinite and neither are military needs. There will come a day when the NATO market will no longer be so lucrative. The question is not if these companies will experience a loss in profits, but when.

A Grand New Purpose

This possibility is well understood by the powers-that-be. NATO Supreme Commander General James E. Jones summed it up the other week when he said, “…there should be no time in which we talk about operations without talking about transformation.”

How does this pan out in reality? With NATO’s brand new “elite rapid reaction force.” The 9,000-strong troop will expand to 20,000 soldiers within 3 years. The force is intended to be “…able to deploy within five to 30 days to deal with operations ranging from evacuations and peacekeeping to counterterrorism or high-intensity combat.” Its geographical remit was left undefined. The bulk of the troops and equipment is to be provided by the Spanish, French and Germans, with the US contributing a token force of 300 soldiers. The command structure is to be similarly multi-cultural, led by a British knight, a Spanish sea-captain, and an Ottoman cavalry commander. Ah, empire!

It is abundantly clear that this new “rapid reaction force” is geared to provide non-American troops for American wars in a way that avoids traditional UN mechanism. This is the best of both worlds, allowing American arms dealers to profit while protecting American political leaders from fallout over the bodybag syndrome.

Old Europe Remains on Top

Despite the vocal opposition of countries like France and Germany, trans-Atlantic relations have in effect not changed because of the Iraq war. NATO remains a Western-controlled alliance, and quietly the anti-war countries supported the war. As General Jones reminded, “…50 percent of all of the cargo that went to prosecute the Iraqi campaign went through Europe; 80 percent of the passengers went through Europe to get there.” According to Jones, NATO has no plans of relocating from Germany’s Ramstein Air Force Base, despite Donald Rumsfeld’s frequent threats to pull out US troops from the country last spring. Cooperation has continued, if less overtly, and Western European countries remain in charge.

Indeed, we shouldn’t think that NATO allies in Fortress Europe are being given nothing except fresh bodybags. In a revealing admission, General Jones outlined what NATO is doing to benefit the greater Western economy and security. He mentions the NATO naval forces, who:

“…have had, for the past six or seven months, the assignment of making sure that transit through the Straits of Gibraltar, and actually, through the Mediterranean itself, are done in accordance with the wishes of the international community.

And having said that, we’ve seen about a 50 percent decrease in illegal immigration in the Western Mediterranean. And because of the security that is afforded by this wonderfully capable maritime force, it’s been reflected in about a 20 percent decrease in the rates for commercial insurance for maritime shipping.”

A Call to Arms- Dealers

As a specific part of this “transformation,” NATO member defense members have agreed to go on a spending spree. An agreement last year will see the purchasing of air-to-air refueling tankers, transport planes, equipment to guard against radiation and WMD’s, secure communications, surveillance and jamming gear, as well as precision defensive missiles and special forces training. Fortunately, American companies sell many of these items.

If not on top, where, then, do the “new” European countries come in? While General Jones admitted that the alliance is headed inexorably eastward, he reaffirmed that its heart will remain in Western Europe. However, the East has great untapped value:

“…if you look at the landscape of Eastern Europe and the presence of former Warsaw Pact countries, you see literally a number of airfields and bases that are not being used, that are just out there. …we’re talking about develop(ing) relationships with particularly our emerging Eastern European friends and allies who want a very close association with the United States from the standpoint of developing their own militaries as they transition from the Warsaw Pact to a Western-type army.”

Indeed, the US seems to be taking the lead in the transformation process, for interests at least as pecuniary as pragmatic:

“…we are really consumed with trying to define once and for all, in a way that makes understandable sense, NATO’s true military requirement for the 21st century.  And we believe that if we can define that, then we can help nations in the alliance decide what, in addition to that, they might wish to have in their own capabilities, quite above what is dedicated to NATO.”

Economies of Scale

Basically, what the US wants with this NATO re-organization is for European client-states to develop higher defense budgets and start firing personnel to set aside more cash for buying American goodies. The US is starting off by pushing new members to reach a defense budget of at least 2 percent of GDP- and to do this, if necessary, by cutting down on uniformed “human resources.” After all, the desired new hardware all has “a high-end price tag associated with it,” reminds General Jones. Small European countries can buy in to the system, however, by firing soldiers and beefing up military spending- or, as General Jones euphemized, by making “…economies of scale by internal reform.”

Budget Requirements

While that little drama seems to be over, the alliance’s “transformed” policy on defense spending is still in the air. It was recently reported that US Ambassador Ronald Weiser is “curious” about Slovakia’s planned 2004 defense budget- which is set to represent 1.9 percent of GDP. Indeed, some Slovaks were too. Former defense minister Ivan Simko, who lost his job amidst the recent Slovak security controversy, warned that

“…if the defense sector does not receive 2 percent of the national GDP in the 2004 state budget, Slovakia may become a second rank NATO member.”

Nobody wants to end up on the B list. Although General Jones hastened to add that he didn’t want to tell “sovereign nations” what to do with their money, the implications are there. And not only that- as a companion report also euphemizes, nations must “streamline political procedures” in order to expedite the deployment of the new rapid reaction force: 

“…(NATO leaders) are particularly concerned by rules in Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Turkey, which need parliamentary approval for sending troops into action. Speaking to reporters, Jones said nations that were not politically ready to deploy troops quickly could be excluded from the new force.”

It is clear that NATO must transform itself in order to survive. In the future, however, expansion may be judged as having happened too fast, if the notable growing pains that accompany it turn out to have limited the alliance’s promised new operational capacities. It is a sensitive time indeed for NATO’s policy chiefs.

Should NATO share its secrets with the East? Get some background with Security Intelligence Services in New Democracies: The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania