Cramer, Gabbitas, and Goldstone

Gabbitas, Guest Lecturer

May 4, 2000

I. Background/History

1.  The end of World War II - how can the U.S. create a stable Europe?
 

a)  The Marshall Plan (March 1948):

• Links Europe to the U.S. through trade and aid
• Congress votes in favor — fears U.S. losses around the world
• The rift between East and West grows

• The Marshall Plan becomes military aid

b)  The creation of NATO (April 1949):

• The Brussels Treaty (1948)
• The Washington Treaty (April 4, 1949) — 10 European countries, Canada, and the United States comprised the original members. (Greece and Turkey signed in 1952. West Germany was added in 1954. Spain later.)

2.  What is NATO?

• Collective defense organization — benefits and limits
• Article 5
• Extended deterrence

3.  Early U.S. debate — Does it look familiar??

• An unending series of Pearl Harbors?
• Senator Robert Taft (Ohio) saw NATO as a threat to Russia
• What was the nature of the Soviet threat - was it ideological, military, or political?

4.  Last chances for peace:

• Soviet attempts to break the spiral; the U.S. refuses (Acheson causes war again??)
• The Soviets explode a nuclear weapon (1955)
• The Warsaw Pact is created

1.  Western European security structure excluding the United States — history of an idea

• Common Foreign and Security Policy (1993) — the lessons of Bosnia and Kosovo
• Options for a Europe-only security structure

• Pros:

• Might reduce the costs to the U.S. of defending Europe
• Would increase the European contribution to NATO
• Would leave someone else to do the jobs that the U.S. has no interest in

• Cons:

• Might push the U.S. out of Europe
• This might leave Europe too weak to defend itself
• Might end up as a greater cost to the U.S.
• Might give Europe too much autonomy

2.  Continent-wide collective security — a collective security system (as opposed to a collective defense organization), provides an all-against-one defense for any member state against any aggressor INCLUDING other member states (the UN was supposed to be the model - oops)

• Pros:
• Strong deterrence
• Prepares for any state to be an aggressor
• Includes Russia
• Increases the available information
• Moderates the security dilemma

• Cons:

• Prone to buck-passing
• It’s not always easy to tell who the aggressor is (remember Germany getting Russia to mobilize first in WWI)
• Not well prepared to deal with any specific aggressor
• If it fails, you’re hosed — don’t have enough capability to defend yourself
• Likely to fail — it’s only possible when it’s not necessary

3.  European concert — in a concert, the major powers try to coordinate their foreign policies and will get together to intervene if presented with a significant threat (Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars — it didn’t do much and then dissolved)

• Pros:
• Only have to coordinate between a few states
• Increases information exchange
• Reduces the potential political costs of uncoordinated intervention
• Cons:
• Breaking a commitment to intervene could be damaging
• Less deterrence
• Not set up to stop all wars, and small wars may spread
• May take too much time to coordinate agreement to intervene

4.  Defensive unilateral security — countries agree to use defensive means to maintain their own security — the goal is to improve relations to mitigate the security dilemma

• Pros:
• More difficult to become an aggressor
• Reduces international tensions
• Cons:
• Is it easy to tell the difference between offense and defense?
• One defector in a world of offensive advantage might easily overrun weaker defensive powers, and no power would be able to come to their aid

5.  NATO — Keep NATO as it was at the end of the Cold War — a collective defense organization with 16 members

• Pros:
• NATO worked in the past to deter threats to Europe
• Organizational structure already in place
• Keeps the U.S. in Europe
• Keeps fears of Germany at bay

• Cons:
• No enemy — who are you defending against?
• Do the allies still have common interests?
• Other options might be better

6.  NATO expansion — the winner

• Three new member countries (1999) — the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary

• What is NATO now?? What kind of security structure?

7.  Combination??

• Why NATO expansion is a bad idea

1.  There’s no threat
2.  Will have a negative impact on Russia
3.  If NATO expands to unstable countries, it will import that instability into the alliance
4.  An expanded NATO isn’t credible
5.  We can’t defend these states
6.  These new states aren’t vital to U.S. security — let Europe deal with these issues
7.  It is costly — between $10 and $110 billion over 10-15 years (depending on the posture)
• The low estimates are unlikely to be accurate:

• The U.S. is likely to pay a disproportionate amount of the costs:

8.  NATO isn’t an instrument of democracy or financial stability — use the EU
 

• Reasons to expand NATO:

1.  Promote democracy
2.  Promote stability
3.  Dampen nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe
4.  Two of the original reasons for NATO still exist — to keep the U.S. in and Germany down
5.  Protect against a resurgent Russia
6.  Improve relations among European states
7.  Give NATO a stronger defensive capability

• Were there options other than expanding NATO which may have achieved the same goals?

1.  Partnership for Peace? 27 members (including Russia)
2.  Expansion of the European Union?

1.  What are the most important U.S. interests?
2.  What are the threats to those interests?
3.  What means might address those threats?
4.  What means must be chosen at the expense of others and which are compatible?