(Page 2 of 18) - NATO Encounters the Broader Middle East: Will the Atlantic Alliance Survive, and if so, How? authored by Rynning, Sten.

The Atlantic Alliance Encounters the Broader Middle East:
Will NATO Survive, and if so, How?

The engagement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the broader Middle East has
become extensive and now defines its principal area of operation. The post-Cold War engagement
began tentatively in 1994 with the Mediterranean Dialogue but it has developed considerably since
then and notably since the turn of the century. In August 2003, NATO took over the command and
coordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, following from
NATO’s growing involvement in ISAF force contributions since 2001. In July 2004, NATO began
a Training Implementation Mission in Iraq in parallel to the US-led coalition forces. NATO had
previously, from February to April 2003, provided Turkey with assistance in the context of the war
in Iraq. In June 2004, NATO opened another dialogue, this time with the countries of the Persian
Gulf in the so-called Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). And NATO is responding to natural as
well as man-made disasters in diverse places such as Pakistan (October 2005-February 2006), the
Sudan (June 2005-February 2006), and Algeria (February 2006).

This engagement in a volatile and critical region is remarkable because among the many post-Cold
War deaths foretold, NATO’s is probably the most frequently cited. Why is such an engagement
forthcoming from an alliance seemingly robbed of purpose and cohesion? This article provides
tentative answers, concluding among other things that it is simply too early to tell whether NATO is
finished. Moreover, the signs of division and controversy that inspired NATO critics in 2002-2003
are not new: NATO was always divided on the Middle East. Put differently, the allies never
coalesced around a view of the values and interest they could promote in the region. Their
engagements tended to cause either intra-alliance dispute or uneasy political consultations.
Coalitions, as opposed to alliances, and controversy, as opposed to agreement, are the historical
hallmarks of NATO’s encounter with Middle Eastern affairs.

What is new is that the Alliance is making this region its central concern. The primary challenge for
the Alliance today is to define a framework for coalition-making and inevitable political
controversy, a framework that previously was defined by the Soviet threat. This framework must
build on a shared understanding of main threats – a type of anti-pluralist conception of order – and
provide a roadmap for broader regional as well as global cooperation toward the Middle East and
this particular conception of order. This challenge might conceivably break the Alliance if it
attempts to engage collectively, as one, in the region in the absence of internal consensus.

There are other possible outcomes, however, and we find them in the historical record. The Alliance
might respond by delegating the prerogative of intervention to the most powerful allies, with the
remainder of the Alliance providing tacit support as well as criticism. This was the outcome of the
initial encounter of 1949-1958, the first case study of this article. The Alliance might also respond
by enhancing the model of consultation and coalition-making that developed in the 1980s, the
second case study of this article. An assessment of these options follows the third and final case
study, that of the post-Cold War era.

Debating NATO

The vices and virtues of alliances have elicited attention from all observers of war and peace,
beginning with Thucydides. The virtue of an alliance is that it balances power. Among its vices is