The Foreign Service Journal, December 2008

42 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 8 peaking as someone who has been observing the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- zation for more than 50 years, I have never ceased to be impressed and surprised by the fervor of its champions. Among so many good and sensible people, NATO seems always to have enjoyed the status of a self-evident good thing — like old buildings among architectural historians or free trade among liberal economists. As a result, the question generally asked about NATO is how can we preserve it, as opposed to what is it good for. This is not to say that there are no good answers to the second question. Joining NATO has helped spread to former communist countries the professional values of Western military establishments, including respect for democratic governance and law. It has also required neighbors to settle longstanding territorial disputes — a condition for joining. Arguably, joining NATO has also greatly improved military performance. The widespread devotion to NATO also reflects con- tinuing support for the whole postwar construct — essentially, a dominant American political and military presence in Europe. This has, for decades, been a pri- mary aim of British foreign policy — a permanent American presence to prevent a great power from aris- ing on the European continent that could threaten Britain’s own independence, or constrain London to reduce its global interests. So long as the Soviets were a great overriding men- ace, Britain’s enthusiasm was widely shared on the con- tinent. Even without that threat, preserving a continu- ing American presence through NATO has remained critical not only for the British but also for many of Europe’s smaller countries, and for many Germans. All other things being equal, many of Europe’s mili- tary probably prefer to be subordinated to the Americans rather than to their own European neighbors and historic rivals. Nevertheless, continental Europeans increasingly want the European Union to develop stronger military capabilities of its own. NATO vs. Europe? NATO and the E.U. are not, of course, inevitably antagonistic. NATO’s contribution to European integra- tion has been vital from the start. The American pres- ence provided the underpinning of security that gave European states the courage to cooperate intimately with each other. With the Americans around, there was F O C U S O N I D E A S F O R T H E N E W A DM I N I S T R AT I O N NATO’ S F UTURE : T AKING A F RESH A PPROACH T HE INCOMING ADMINISTRATION SHOULD QUIETLY SEEK A MORE CREATIVE SECURITY STRUCTURE — ONE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES E URASIA ’ S TRANSFORMATION . B Y D AVID P. C ALLEO S David P. Calleo is the Dean Acheson Professor and direc- tor of the European studies program within the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.