|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Introduction: NATO at 40: Still Needed?
| Article
# : |
15120 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1989 |
624 Words |
| Author
: |
Editor
|
As NATO begins its fifth decade, an increasing number of observers are asking if, in a new era of superpower cooperation, it is still needed or even relevant. Whether the cooperation is permanent or temporary, they argue, the old "imminent invasion" rationale for NATO no longer obtains, particularly in the wake of the U.S.-Soviet agreement limiting intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF).
Supporters of NATO respond that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Despite the very real differences between Washington and European capitals on the issue and degree of burden sharing, the key role of U.S. forces in the defense of Europe if it is attacked is not seriously questioned by any NATO member. Nor is there disagreement about the demonstrated ability of NATO over the last 40 years to deter war. There is serious debate, however, as to whether the primary approach to deterrence in the years to come should be military or political/ diplomatic, with West Germany stressing the need to reduce tensions with the Warsaw Pact.
Fred C. Ikle, who co-chaired the bipartisan Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, suggests that a major East-West crisis "is rather unlikely in the near term." But even in the absence of an immediate threat, he warns, it would be a mistake not to continue arms modernization and controls on the transfer of strategic technology to the East. NATO, he says, will have to "adjust its nuclear strategy so as to bring it more into harmony with the changed nuclear balance and with arms control developments." In addition to its military defenses, says Ikle, the alliance also wields a political "sword": "the humanistic, democratic tradition of the Atlantic
... (1943 of 3848 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
