Sean-Paul asks regarding Georgia’s possible future entry into NATO,
… are you willing to have your son or daughter fight or die in the Caucasus on the basis of post-imperial rivalries between the Iranians, the Turks, the Russians and us? Remember, NATO is a defensive alliance. That is its sole purpose. If one member is attacked all come to its defense.
…
Do we really want to commit to a coutry we know little about, that is using us for its own post-imperial reasons, to protect a pipeline that won’t, in the end, deliver all that much oil? Futhermore, how do Abkhazia and Ossetia fit into all this? Does a NATO treaty include defending Georgia in an attempt to regain de facto power in the regions?
I agree that those are issues worth considering. And, like him, I am sure the decision has already been made. And I would add that it probably was done/will be done so without careful consideration of these issues.
I think it’s worth looking at a map of NATO members and mentally coloring in the aspirants.
It’s fairly obvious that NATO no longer entirely serves its original purpose, and if the Baltics and other East European states are members, should Georgia be denied? NATO has yet to make clear exactly what purpose it serves after the Cold War. Some new members certainly appear to treat it as defense against Russia. Older members seem to use it as a way to put states on the path to eventual EU membership. And it certainly is well-equipped to provide defense modernization and training assistance.
So, should it keep expanding? Have international politics* and NATO’s role sufficiently changed to the point that its collective defense role need not be at the fore of expansion decisions?
I certainly think it’d be worth member states’ time to figure out all of these issues in advance of a potential crisis that would force their consideration under pressure. But, since that’s not likely going to happen, should expansion keep on trucking? And if not, where should it stop?
*Because really, when it comes right down to it, how many citizens, let alone governments, of member states feel stongly motivated to defend one another because of the collective defense agreement–especially if the stakes are high and certain states don’t feel threatened?
This post was written by...
Nathan Hamm – author of 2974 posts on Registan.net.
Nathan is the Founding Editor and Publisher of Registan.net, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. Nathan is currently seeking research, analysis, and consulting opportunities. He can be contacted via Twitter or email.
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 11 comments }
I don’t think the principal of all members coming to the aid of one is taken quite so seriously these days.
Certainly, over in Europe, there is a lot of… disappointment, shall we say… that their decision to invoke Article 5 after 9/11 was pretty much ignored by the US who chose to develop the now famous coalition of the willing. Many European states (rightly or wrongly) feel they’ve had their noses bloodied over this, and will think twice before doing so again.
Whether NATO members actually will invoke Article 5 if a NATO Georgia, for example, is attacked is rather like the Cold War question over nuclear retaliation. It’s quite possible that a US President might have chosen not to respond if the US faced immediate nuclear annihilation, but would anyone in the Kremlin want to take the risk?
(Impricise analogy, I know, but I’m juggling writing this and cooking a stir fry. Work with me here, people).
(Impricise analogy, I know, but I’m juggling writing this and cooking a stir fry. Work with me here, people).
Will do. And I’ll even throw in forgiveness of the spelling mistakes! (Which I can’t even chalk up to the generally atrocious spelling you Commonwealthers learn…)
But seriously, Sean-Paul said something to me along the lines of it should be either a political club or a military alliance. I think it’s the former masquerading as the latter.
(Oh, and if I ever make spelling mistakes or whatnot, it’s only because I can’t be bothered with such minor issues and not because I’m, you know, wrong or anything.)
To be precise, I wrote:
“I think it is hugely problematic that NATO is perceived as being more than a defensive military alliance. It is largely seen as a political club now. It’s like the victors of the Treaty of Vienna morphing into the Concert Of Europe. It’s a bad development. Military alliances should be military alliances and political clubs should be political clubs.”
Glad you posted about this. The more I think about this the more problematic the issue grows. I’ll try to elaborate on this in a subsequent post.
I’m not so sure that NATO being a political/defensive hybrid alliance is as problematic as some think.
I can see that it does cause some problems, and lacking a single defined focus can make an organisation prone to indecision, and potentially ineffectiveness (especially if clear chains of decision making command become clouded).
But I think that in today’s world, a alliance which is purely defensive is less needed (especially among the mos developed countries). There simply isn’t the level of threat (and certainly not the level of threat perception) that there was 20 or more years ago.
It’s interesting to note that many other organisations these days can’t be described as purely political or defensive – there is a definite trend towards incorporating both aspects.
The EU is a prime aspect – it is beginning to shift from being a purely political organisation to one that incorporates defence. (Slowly, tortureously, and not very convincingly though, it has to be said).
The SCO in Central Asia is another example of an organisation that mixes both defense and political roles, and I’m sure there are several more.
I think, to be honest, one of the biggest problems that many people have with the shift in NATO’s role is that they can no longer pigeon hole the organisation into a neat… pigeon hole. This is especially true of political scientests, in my experience.
Sean-Paul – I did look into this quite extensively when I was studying for my MA a couple of years back, and it’s a fascinating topic. I’ve lost most of my notes and details of source articles unfortunately, but I’d be happy to chat privately if you want to bounce some ideas around. Or perhaps we could set up some kind of debate…?
Andy, funny you mention that you studied this for your MA. I attended a conference in Triste in 1998 on just this issue with some of the young up and comers from the Eastern European foreign ministries and journalists etc. . so yeah, I think we should set up some kind of debate. Suggestions? Will you blog it here or at Siberian Light? Either way works for me. How about you take the lead with the first post?
Hey, If Kazakhstan can be a member of UEFA (the European soccer union) I’m sure Georgia can make a strong case for being a member of NATO. Moreover, it would mean that Georgia would be the second country to join NATO through whose territory the TBC pipeline passes – Turkey already being a member of NATO. Then again, I’ve never attached much significance to the supposed links between politics and pipelines.
Oh, trust me, that pipeline matters. Every Georgian I spoke to was very proud of the pipeline and the linkage it created with the outside world.
Sean-Paul, I’m happy to kick off the debate. Registan sounds like a pretty good place to host it assuming Nathan is ok with that. Would you want to host your side at the Agonist, or here as well?
We need to settle on a question, too. Would you prefer to focus on something specific like ‘Should NATO expand to include Georgia?’ or something more general like ‘Should NATO be a defence organisation or a political organisation, or both?’ I’m happy with either, although if we choose the second Nathan may not feel it fits here.
We should probably set a limit on the number of posts/responses, otherwise we could go on forever. I think four each would probably work best, but three or five would work too depending on available time.
Sorry Nathan – we seem to have hijacked your thread.
No, it’s all topical and interesting, so I don’t care.
I’m more than willing to host it if you’d like.
Andy, how about we host it here at Registan and at The Agonist, as Nathan seems to be ok with that. And lets limit it to three responses, but with a twist. Let’s do both questions consecutively! You start with the broader “‘Should NATO be a defence organisation or a political organisation, or both?’” And then, after we’ve had that conversation we’ll narrow it down to the Georgia question in particular and I will lead off on that one. Sound good? If so, I will look for a post here at Registan in the near future.
Sounds good to me. I’ll aim to put up the first post here at Registan over the weekend.