|
The
North Atlantic alliance, which now extends to lands between the Baltic and the
Black Sea, was created to contain the Soviet Union. Yet today, Russia belongs to
the Group of Eight leading nations and, in the coming years, further conflict
and possible chaos in the Middle East appears to be the most important global
security threat. It is against this background that the leaders of Nato, newly
enlarged to 26 member states, meet today In Istanbul.
On
their agenda is a review of how Nato operations will be financed, how members'
contributions can be made more permanent, and how members must build the more
mobile and flexible armed forces required by probable future challenges. Beyond
these important "technical" matters there is the fundamental question
about Nato's mission in the 21st century. In trying to define that mission, two
key relationships must be clarified: that of the US and European Union within
Nato and that between Nato and the United Nations Security Council.
By
2007, 21 of the 26 Nato members will also be in the EU. Among the European
members, only Norway; Iceland and Turkey will not yet be in the EU. Turkey is
hoping to join the Union a few years after 2010 and Norway and Iceland may also
eventually join. One need not believe in an ever-tighter political union to
contemplate a future of much greater European co-operation on defence and
foreign policy matters. If the EU is to have any future beyond that of a large
customs union, there must be greater policy co-ordination in all areas,
including defence. European nations will share some of their sovereignty in that
domain, too. The EU will not become a new super-nation-state, but there will
most likely be an EU foreign minister, joint representation in many
international institutions, elements of a joint defence force, some pooling of
defence resources and some thing of a European strategic vision. This will
transform the nature of the transatlantic relationship within Nato.
The
alliance was forged between the US, Canada and their European friends; it will
remain an alliance of nation states, but it will also increasingly be an
alliance with two fundamental pillars: the US and the EU. While it may not be
possible to foresee the speed and extent of increased European Security and
Defence Policy co-operation, the direction is clear. A vision for Nato's future
must take into account this evolution of Europe and try to build structures that
recognise the direction of change.
This
brings us to the second question: what should be the relationship between this
US-EU alliance and the UN, in a world no longer divided by the iron curtain? Is
there really an enduring need for Nato given that its original raison d'être
has disappeared?
If
Europe and the US want to work for a peaceful world order based on international
co-operation, if they want to strengthen the link between legitimacy and the
exercise of power and find the most appropriate forms of multi-level global
governance, they cannot define Nato's mission separately and independently from
the UN Security Council. It is very unlikely that Nato members will have to face
classical aggression directed at their territory by one or more nation-states -
at least in the foreseeable future. It is likely, however, that security inside
Nato countries as well as outside will be threatened by non-state actors or
natural calamities. The vast amounts paid by US and EU taxpayers only make sense
if Nato can effectively address such threats. At the same time, recent events
should help us understand that the US and the EU cannot and should not,
individually or together, set themselves up to act as prosecutor, judge and
enforcer all at the same time. Military action by Nato that goes beyond
immediate self-defence will need an endorsement that confers on it broad and
internationally recognised legitimacy. The Security Council is the only
mechanism that can confer such legitimacy. It is true, of course, that current
arrangements at the UN, inherited from a different era, do not function
adequately. It was not acceptable, for example, that a Russian veto prevented
the intervention in Kosovo from acquiring UN endorsement. In Afghanistan, on the
contrary, the UN was able to confer such legitimacy and Nato acts there with
Security Council support. What is now needed is reflection on how the Nato-UN
relationship will work, including the kind of reform needed at the UN for the
relationship to be able to function more effectively.
Turkey,
the host of the Nato summit, is a secular democracy in a Muslim country, a
middle-income emerging market economy. It is also a country where 70 per cent of
the people support both membership and the building of a stronger Europe. Its
citizens value friendship with America, while having deep misgivings about US
policies that are perceived as unilateralist.
Thus,
the venue should encourage Nato leaders to think globally and to develop a
vision that would allow the US and Europe to lead the world, not towards new
forms of domination by the rich and powerful, but towards security based on
legitimacy, fairness and the rule of law for all.
The
writer, a former Turkish economy minister,
is
now member of parliament for Istanbul
|
