![]() ![]() For most of the Europeans, NATO’s fundamental purpose is to provide security in and for Europe. How far should NATO’s writ extend geographically? The American vision of a NATO acting globally is not widely shared by the European allies. An alliance that provides rapid and effective responses to crises in and outside allied territory, even if action is taken by a subset of allies, is preferable to one that conditions action on potentially unattainable unanimous support.Ģ. The possibility for joint military action in a non-Article 5 context should not be conditioned on unanimous consent. There is no doubt that NATO could embark on missions using force, if its members so desired, to confront crises or threats that do not directly affect allied territory but that may have implications for important national or humanitarian interests, (e.g., confronting arms proliferation or genocide)-though to what extent remains disputed within the alliance. Under what circumstances should NATO threaten use of force? The traditional criterion-self-defense against armed attack on any member’s home territory (Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty)-is too narrow. The debate surrounding NATO’s evolution from a collective defense alliance to an organization primarily concerned with managing crises centers around three questions:ġ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |