Today President Obama switched his attention from the G-20 to NATO. The NATO military alliance was a cornerstone of U-S Cold War security policy. Now two decades after the Cold War ended, NATO is still trying to redefine its purpose. Anchor Katy Clark discusses the alliance's relevance with Nick Burns, a former U-S ambassador to NATO.
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI's THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI's THE WORLD is the program audio.
KATY CLARK: But we stay now on the subject of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an alliance of nations committed to mutual defense. An attack on one is an attack on all. It was a cornerstone of US security in the Cold War, successfully containing the threat of Soviet aggression. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago, the alliance is still trying to redefine its purpose. Nicholas Burns was US ambassador to NATO from 2001 to 2005. He now teaches diplomacy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. And Ambassador Burns, make a case for why NATO is still relevant?
NICHOLAS BURNS: Oh, I think NATO is still highly relevant. You know, the world is a dangerous and violent place, unfortunately. And since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, you've seen NATO step in to very important peacekeeping missions. NATO also of course has been the central institution, trying to preserve the democratic peace. In Europe, following the end of the Cold War the number of European countries that transitioned from Communism to democracy, and NATO safeguards their security. So I think it's one of the most important security institutions in the world.
CLARK: But there's really no threat to the United States and Europe anymore, so what is the point of such a tight military alliance?
BURNS: Well, there was certainly a threat to the United States and the Balkans. When the wars broke out as Yugoslavia disintegrated, we went to war twice, we, the United States, with our NATO allies. And we have American and NATO forces still patrolling Kosovo and European forces patrolling Bosnia. So I think there are some remaining dangers in Europe. But in a wider sense, what's happened in the 21st century in our time is that because of globalization, the threats are now much more international. It's very important that the European countries, the allies of the United States and the US, go out to meet those threats together in places like Afghanistan. And that makes NATO's role, I think, even more critical today than it was perhaps in the ‘90s.
CLARK: Well, there is talk about a new strategic concept for NATO post-Cold War. What do you see that as being? What would you like to see it be?
BURNS: A strategic concept is essentially the mission plan for the NATO alliance. It was last updated in 1999. That's before 9-11. So I think that the Obama Administration's idea is a very good one, and that is that NATO ought to formally rethink its mission in the world. And that might help to point the way towards the Europeans having to do more, having to raise those defense budgets, having to become more capable for these extraordinarily difficult missions that we find ourselves in, certainly in Afghanistan whereas you know, the war is not going well. The Taliban has been on the offensive, and it's now imperative that a stronger Western NATO military effort be produced so that we can be successful in helping the Afghan people.
CLARK: I'd like to just get back one more time to the question -- the importance of the special relationship between the US and Europe. I mean, we've seen just how important other countries like China and India have become to the United States and to the rest of the world, and in this time of economic crisis and belt tightening, why should we continue this unique relationship with Europe when the United States might need to be forging stronger alliances with other emerging powers? I mean, are there only so many resources to go things down, and do we need to prioritize better?
BURNS: I guess I'd say that we don't need to choose, that we ought – in the 21st century when we're facing so many problems – terrorism, proliferation, climate change, drug cartel. I think in a globalized world we really don't have much of an alternative here to try to create the type of alliances worldwide that will be effective in safeguarding our security and doing the other things that we have to do around the world.
CLARK: Nicholas Burns is former US Ambassador to NATO. Thank you.
transcript