NATO, Churchil, and Keohane: Happy 70th Anniversary

Today is the 70th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  It is also perhaps the bumpiest big date for the organization in some time, if not ever, thanks to the hostility shown to it by the President of the United States.  This is quite a turnaround given that the US has been the primary driver behind most NATO endeavors.  Two questions come to the fore in any anniversary: what has life been like so far and will it continue?

To be clear, NATO is imperfect, which is where Churchill comes in.  Just as Churchill said that democracies are the worst form of government except for all of the others, NATO is the worst form of multilateral military organizations except for all of the others.  There is uneven burden-sharing, but that is inherent in alliances and we have known that since the 1960s.  NATO endeavors often leave one with much regret--that Kosovo had broader ramifications (although I still think US-Russian relations would be awful these days), that Libya proved that regime change requires more than bombing a government into submission, that Afghanistan has not worked out that great.  And, yes, countries opt into and out of whatever they want--they impose restrictions on their missions. 

Yet, NATO has helped to provide stability and security in Europe, the requirements for prosperity not just there but elsewhere.  There is little doubt that NATO helped to deter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which then gave Western Europe the time and space to rebound from World War II.  These days, despite much trouble within (rise of authoritarianism), NATO still plays a vital role in deterring Russia. Ukraine and the Baltics have had very different experiences since 2014 (and even before) thanks to where the lines between NATO and non-NATO.  That old line about NATO keeping the US in, the Soviets (Russians) out, and Germany down has long been in Meatloaf's territory--two out of three ain't bad.  Yes, we want more German leadership these days, if the we are Americans.  The Europeans?  Hmmm. 

We take for granted those things that prevent.  In the past decade or two, we have seen a movement against vaccines as we have forgotten the toll taken by various diseases.  As we see now, investing in prevention is better than having figure out and pay for cures.  The same applies to European security--NATO has required a massive investment to produce credible security guarantees.  This is a cost paid for not just in dollars and euros but in blood.  Most countries joined the NATO effort in Afghanistan not because they wanted to help Afghans but because they wanted to meet their alliance obligations and keep NATO a going concern. 

The alternative to NATO is yet more expensive--countries would have to do far more to defend themselves, including perhaps investing in nuclear weapons OR they would have to succumb not necessarily to Russian invasions but to Russian coercion.  And anybody watching what has happened to Russia's neighbors since 1991 and to Ukraine since 2014 should take seriously that Russia would coerce and destabilize.  One could argue it was the extension of NATO to Russia's borders that started all of this, but that would require one to forget what Russia has done in its Near Abroad even before Kosovo.  And it would require one to forget that damn near all of the American tanks were headed out of Europe in early 2014, and European defence budgets were spiraling down.

Moving on to the future, it is important to remember that NATO has had repeated existential crises and yet remains with us.  It found new missions after the end of the cold war--stopping genocide in Bosnia and facilitating the expansion of democracy (civilian control of the military) to Eastern Europe.  It now engages not just in counter-terrorism via a fleet in the Mediterranean but also counter-piracy in the Red Sea and beyond.  The Enhanced Forward Presence effort in the Baltics is a return to the old deterrence playbook.  All of this demonstrates something that I scoffed at in grad school--Keohane was right!  Institutions are hard to create, so folks will keep around older ones and adapt them rather than build new ones. 

NATO is the most institutionalized alliance in history.  Its members know what is expected of them, which makes it easier to figure out what to do and where they fit.  Canada has a far easier time managing its European relations than its Pacific ones because Canadian officials know where the country fits into Europe.  It has no similar place in Asia despite being a country with two (or three) coasts.  The formal equality combined with informal procedures, habits and norms help to ensure that NATO members can exert some influence in how they do their international relations. 

So, on this 70th anniversary, I raise a glass not just to toast my best book (thanks, Dave) but to honor those who have done the heavy lifting to help build a better world.  It hasn't always worked so well, but I doubt anyone could have done much better.