NATO and World Security By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

Published: August 19, 2009

In the course of its 60 years, NATO has institutionalized three monumental transformations in world affairs: first, the end of the centuries-long “civil war” within the West for trans-oceanic and European supremacy; second, the United States’s post–World War II commitment to the defense of Europe against Soviet domination; and third, the peaceful termination of the Cold War, which created the preconditions for a larger democratic European Union.

These successes, however, give rise to a legitimate question: What next?

NATO now confronts historically unprecedented risks to global security. The paradox of our time is that the world, increasingly connected and economically interdependent, is experiencing intensifying popular unrest. Yet there is no effective global security mechanism for coping with the growing threat of chaos stemming from humanity’s recent political awakening.

Additionally complicating is the fact that the dramatic rise of China and India and the quick recovery of Japan within the last 50 years have signaled that the global center of political and economic gravity is shifting away from the North Atlantic toward Asia and the Pacific.

This dispersal of global power and the expanding mass unrest make for a combustible mixture. In this dangerous setting, the first order of business for NATO members is to define and pursue together a politically acceptable outcome to its out-of region military engagement in Afghanistan. This must be pursued on a genuinely shared military and economic basis, without caveats regarding military participation or evasions regarding financial assistance for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Such a resolution of NATO’s first campaign based on Article 5 is necessary to sustain alliance credibility.

However, the fact is that the qualified wording of Article 5 allows each country to do as much or as little as it thinks appropriate in response to an attack on a fellow NATO member, and NATO’s reliance upon consensus for decision-making enables even just one or two members in effect to veto any response at all — a problem made more acute by the expansion of the alliance to 28 members and the vulnerability of some members to foreign inducements. Hence, some thought should be given to formulating a more operational definition of “consensus” when it is shared by an overwhelming majority but not by everyone.

The alliance also needs to define for itself a geopolitically relevant long-term strategic goal for its relationship with the Russian Federation. Russia is not an enemy, but it still views NATO with hostility. Hence, two strategic objectives should define NATO’s goal: to consolidate security in Europe by drawing Russia into a closer association with the Euro-Atlantic community, and to engage Russia in a wider web of global security that indirectly facilitates the fading of Russia’s lingering imperial ambitions.

A good first step might be an agreement on security cooperation between NATO and the Kremlin-created Collective Security Treaty Organization, which consists of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In return for this concession — which Moscow has long sought — such an arrangement should be made conditional on provisions that confirm the right of current nonmembers to seek membership of their own choice in either NATO or the CSTO.

Better relations between NATO and Russia could also facilitate a cooperative outreach toward the rising Asian powers, which should be drawn into joint security undertakings. Such gradually expanding cooperation could lead, in turn, to a joint NATO-Shanghai Cooperation Organization council, thereby indirectly engaging China in cooperation with NATO, clearly a desirable goal. Indeed, given the changing distribution of global power, NATO should soon consider more direct formal links with several leading East Asian powers — especially China and Japan — as well as with India.

But to remain relevant, NATO cannot — as some have urged — simply expand itself into a global alliance or transform itself into a global alliance of democracies. A global NATO would dilute the centrality of the U.S.-European connection, and none of the rising powers would be likely to accept membership in a globally expanded NATO. Furthermore, an ideologically defined global alliance of democracies would face serious difficulties in determining whom to exclude and in striking a reasonable balance between its doctrinal and strategic purposes.

NATO, however, has the experience, the institutions and the means to become the hub of a globe-spanning web of various regional cooperative-security undertakings among states with the growing power to act. In pursuing that strategic mission, NATO would not only be preserving trans-Atlantic political unity; it would also be responding to the 21st century’s increasingly urgent security agenda.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was U.S. national security adviser from 1977 to 1981. A longer version of this essay will appear in the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20iht-edbrzezinski.html?_...

Views: 54

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by Tara on August 20, 2009 at 5:37pm
Ditto on that mrgone.....he is evil incarnate! All you have to do is look at his eyes and you know that you're staring into the eyes of a madman! Another NWO scumbag!!!!!!
Comment by mrgone on August 20, 2009 at 5:14pm
I Hate that Commie Brezinski.

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Doc Vega posted a blog post

The Cancel Culture Vulture

  Better to shut them down than hear their point of viewCancel culture coming after youHelping to…See More
yesterday
Doc Vega posted a photo
Friday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

The Fingerprint

The Fingerprint On a dance with the unpredictability of the signals you sendA solemn pact with my…See More
Friday
Sandy posted a video
Friday
tjdavis posted a video
Thursday
Burbia replied to Burbia's discussion Trump Receives Marching Orders
Wednesday
Less Prone favorited Burbia's video
Wednesday
Less Prone replied to Burbia's discussion Trump Receives Marching Orders
"Bullets can be effective in reinforcing ownership."
Wednesday
Burbia posted a discussion

Trump Receives Marching Orders

Netanyahu has made 3 visits to the White house since Trump's second term as President of the United…See More
Wednesday
Burbia commented on Burbia's video
Thumbnail

Ben Shapiro Just LOST HIS MIND — There's No Coming Back From This

"Omg. The Ben Shapiro voice that Luke is imitating here couldn't be any more comedic to…"
Tuesday
Burbia posted a video

Ben Shapiro Just LOST HIS MIND — There's No Coming Back From This

Get the magnesium your body needs - https://wearechange.shop/product/magnesium-glycinate/Ben Shapiro Just LOST HIS MIND — There's No Coming Back From ThisHig...
Tuesday
cheeki kea posted photos
Tuesday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
Jul 7
Burbia posted a video

A few reasons I don’t like jews. It’s not complicated.

These are the reasons I became antisemitic. It’s not complicated. Sure, I could go on for days, weeks, months outlining everything, but I don’t need to. This...
Jul 6
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post Unusual Discoveries and Headlines
"Less Prone, Thanks Buddy! I'd like to volunteer as a historical reconstructionist! "
Jul 6
Less Prone left a comment for t.me/TheIntelligenceLibrary
"Welcome to a revolutionary concept in public communication, the truth."
Jul 6
pohonemas33 team is now a member of 12160 Social Network
Jul 6
Less Prone favorited cheeki kea's discussion Tartaria
Jul 6
tjdavis's 2 blog posts were featured
Jul 6
Doc Vega's 7 blog posts were featured
Jul 6

© 2025   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted