The Alliance needs its members to get tough

In advance of the upcoming NATO Leaders Meeting, it is a timely to discuss the Alliance as a political forum and its future cohesion. NATO’s strength and resilience derive from Allies’ shared committment to the values and spirit of the Washington Treaty, namely the principles of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the development of peaceful international relations. As NATO grapples with a challenging security environment, it must also confront erosion of democratic norms within some member countries, which undermines NATO unity. On April 27, 2021, The Center for Strategic and International Studies convened a panel to discuss prospects for NATO cohesion in light of a changing strategic environment. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:

Ambassador Muriel Domenach: Permanent Representative of France to NATO

MdB Omid Nouripour: Foreign Policy Spokesperson for the German Green party.

Rachel Ellehuus (Moderator): Deputy Director of the CSIS Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program

Heather A. Conley (Introductory Remarks): Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic

Values and Principles Define NATO

One consistent theme of the panel was the centrality of democratic values and ideals for defining the character of the NATO alliance. Ambassador Domenach noted that a lack of ideological and political cohesion across NATO member countries is a detriment to Alliance structure. The increasing failure to agree on basic norms of good governance and democratic rule intensifies tension and undermines meaningful cooperation. Moreover, the failure to agree on basic values undermines the material ability of NATO and its member nations to engage in its core functions of deterrence and defense in two ways. First, ideological rifts are particularly significant in the context of NATO’s organizational structure, which requires unified decision-making. When any one country can block actions by the group, schisms within the group become increasingly problematic. Second, lack of ideological cohesion in NATO undermines credibility because it decreases the likelihood that NATO will be able to act decisively against its enemies.

Nouripour similarly argued that ideological divisions among NATO members has material implications for security. He pointed to Turkey’s current attempts to play the US and Russia off of one another. The most significant manifestation of this strategy of straddling with ideological opponents has been the purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system. However, Ankara has recently discovered that the black boxes in the S-400 will not allow them to target Russian planes. In essence, then, a NATO ally has ceded its air defense sovereignty to Russia.

Ellehuus pointed out, however, that NATO has not always relied on, or succeeded based on, ideological uniformity. In fact, at the outset NATO included members such as Portugal that did not at the time share the same democratic values as many of the other members. She argued that this might indicate that value cohesion is not necessarily crucial for NATO. However, both Nouripour and Domenach agreed that ideological cohesion is more critical now than it was in the early days of NATO. Nouripour argued that democratic backsliding and the rise of disinformation campaigns and other attempts to actively weaken democracies dictates that a stronger emphasis be placed on maintaining democratic values.

Compelling Good Behavior

One clear weakness of the NATO structure that emerged out of this panel’s discussion is the difficulty that the organization has in compelling good behavior from non-compliant member states. Domenach pointed to suggestions about creating a code of conduct or reviewing compliance with fundamental NATO values. Ellehuus similarly pointed to two proposed articles that would require NATO allies to 1) refrain from politically motivated blockages of NATO business, and 2) to report any interactions with third countries that might affect the security of allies.

However, she also acknowledged that these changes were highly unlikely to pass in any meaningful form, largely because non-compliant members can and most likely will veto any attempt to pass these measures. She also argued that the North Atlantic Council is a valuable forum through which to air disagreements and negotiate solutions. Recent attempts by the NATO Secretary-General have proven fruitful in this regard.

Nouripour disagreed with this assessment to some extent. While he agreed that NATO is unlikely to pass meaningful reforms that allow it to police the conduct of member states, he similarly found the prospect of the North Atlantic Council and the NATO Secretary-General negotiating compliance to be unlikely. Instead, he argued more in favor of direct bilateral and multilateral engagement to push for democratic values. Given the constraints of NATO as an organization, he believes that states acting on a national basis can perhaps create greater leverage with member countries. Ellehuus ultimately agreed that national power might be an effective mechanism through which to encourage compliance

Therefore, while NATO faces a variety of internal and external threats to its political and ideological cohesion, member states are stepping up in innovative ways to tackle the new threats of the 21st century.

To watch the event in full, please click here.