As the Afghanistan proves it is not the means

Against all odds, NATO has remarkably survived at the end of the cold war and the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact by integrating in his former country fire satellites within the USSR. His intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was considered a success. While expanding more and more to the East of Europe, NATO has embarked on a transformation without precedent in the history of the alliances military to adapt to the challenges of the new century, in particular the fight against terrorism, the proliferation and drug trafficking.

And, yet, five years after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 against the United States, the Organization of the Treaty of the North Atlantic, created from the ashes of the second world war by the Western powers to counter the advances of the late Soviet in Europe, is in identity crisis and is far from having the resources for its ambitions. The Riga Summit, in Latvia, which today brings together the heads of State or Government of the 26 member countries of the alliance, likely to be, according to the word of Julianne Smith, of the American Institute of research CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), "that of introspection." Not only its members are deeply divided on the nature of the alliance, its missions or the geographic scope of its interventions, but the organization is tripping in Afghanistan, which sank in the 20th century the Red Army.

The Riga Summit should have seen the announcement of new initiatives to continue the great transformation, or the opening of discussions on the integration of new members. The Ukraine, the Georgia had knocked on his door. Some were even tomorrow countries such as the Japan, South Korea or the Australia closer to the alliance as partners. Instead, the Organization will have, in Riga, review of the operation in Afghanistan, became for her a real test of its ability to survive. The setbacks in Afghanistan are certainly due to a resurgence of the Taliban, forced out of power after September 11, perhaps to the mistakes in this country by the allied powers, but, for some, they are also the consequence of the weakness of the number of troops by member countries in its service and low solidarity between different countries contributors to Isaf (international security assistance Force).

The France, which proposes the creation of a contact group, as in Kosovo, bringing together the countries of the region, the main countries involved and international organizations, will likely be not only in Riga to oppose a new increase, preferring a better use of the troops on the ground. More broadly, the situation in Afghanistan is explained by the transatlantic gap in military matters. The French Deputy Pierre Lellouche, outgoing Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, noted that the European Union, with a population once and a half higher than the United States, spending only 40 of what America spends on its military budget and was able to send on external military theatres that 10 of its combat forces. However this weakness comes at a time where the missions of the Organization cease to multiply: of the Afghanistan in Kosovo, humanitarian interventions as the tsunami of 2004 to the logistical support and training to the African Union in its operation in Darfur, aid in the formation of the new army in Iraq anti-terrorist missions in the Mediterranean. More than 50,000 soldiers under the command of NATO are deployed today on three continents and never capabilities have was also tense, warned its Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Dutch, in early November at a conference organized by a "think tank" in Brussels, SDA (Security and Defence Agenda). But Europe is not alone to blame for the difficulties. Far from it. The United States also have a share. Their military budget has grown steadily since 2001, although they use NATO as a last resort to rather than a multilateral institution but an organization "à la carte" according to their interests. In Afghanistan, Washington also did not call for NATO to overthrow of the Taliban regime in 2001, but only after the fact to take charge of the operation of the United Nations. A paradox! The allies, same as turbulent as the France, were yet brought them their support after the September 11 attacks and had not hesitated to invoke for the first time, article 5 of the Treaty of the North Atlantic that an attack on one NATO member is an attack against all. Or rather "a missed opportunity", as pointed out in the SDA the former Chairman of NATO's military Committee, General Klaus Nauman.

To overcome this crisis, NATO will have to revise down its objectives. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has already set a number of limitations to the organization. According to him, it must not be "Constable of the world". That is, it must not become a universal world Organization, but defending member countries against global threats such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or bankrupt States. Similarly, it can turn into humanitarian organization or "Agency for reconstruction." As the Afghanistan proves, it is not the means.

But the biggest problem is probably its relationship with the European Union. Hoop Scheffer had wished that the two organizations do not engage in "a beauty contest" by launching initiatives overlapping. The European Union and NATO have a tendency to replicate competing projects in the military field, the first launches tactical battle groups, the other the NRF (Nato Response Force) rapid reaction force, but without actual harmonisation between the two forces. In addition, the design of the transatlantic relationship is different between the two shores of the ocean. François Heisbourg, the Foundation for strategic research in Paris, noted recently that NATO is no longer a pivot in American strategy and became a "euphemism" used in Washington to designate the European allies. One could also say that, for many Europeans, NATO means America.

And yet, it is difficult to imagine a transatlantic without NATO while threats tend to multiply and that a perfume of cold war seems to return. But to survive, it must reduce its wing and ambitions, as the European Union should do so after the rejection by the French and the Dutch of its draft Constitution.