The divide that has arisen in NATO because of intervention in Libya is not solely the fault of Germany. Nothing within the charter or the Strategic Concept mandates NATO action in Libya and so to invoke collective security was a brash action on the part of France, the UK and the USA. The lack of consensus in NATO’s new role that the strategic concept fails to define in this era of increased European stability and security has affected the willingness of European states to commit adequately towards security. This issue is at the very heart of the US perception that NATO has outlived its usefulness. Robert Gates, the outgoing US Defence Secretary, stated that NATO’s future is "dim, if not dismalThe Sacramento Bee.. In the US, his critical words on the Organisation received a strong endorsement indicating that US patience in this matter is almost at an end. Gates may have been overly optimistic when he said that it is not too late for change. The strategic concept has not brought about any real change in the willingness of European states to involve themselves in future NATO out-of-area operations. NATO needs to go back to the drawing board and needs to find consensus beyond the existing guideline that its strategic concept represents and include legally binding obligations towards burden sharing. An expanded role beyond its borders, including R2P, needs to be included in its concept to ensure its future relevance.
That's just stupid. So stupid that it would take several people with PhDs toiling for weeks cooped up without any sunlight or reality seeping in to make the argument for it.
I think that NATO should remain (with American participation) in case Russia becomes a military threat to Europe again (it would be too difficult to rebuild the alliance after disbanding it); to ease worries about united Germany's power within Europe; and to provide common doctrines and interoperability for coalitions of the willing amongst the biggest bloc of the world's democracies for out-of-area missions using coalitions of the willing.
The idea that countries not willing to contribute to the Libya War will adopt policies that mandate their participation in future similar humanitarian wars is so stupid as to defy description. And if NATO ever adopts R2P as the reason for NATO and requires member states to take part, you'll see more than half of Europe's NATO states withdraw from the alliance.
There are worse things than an imperfect NATO. Like no NATO. Or one so shrunken that it undermines any claims to be a forum for European-American common defense policy.
