Thinking beyond NATO — a future defence alliance in the Anglosphere?*
If Donald Trump becomes US President the future of NATO appears likely set to change.[1] Mr Trump has already remarked upon an uneasiness about the expectation that America ought to normatively engage in military activities in Europe whilst also maintaining a far more conciliatory approach to the Russian Federation and Vladimir Putin than the administrations of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.[2]
Previously, accepted tenets of Anglo-American and western European strategic military policy were solidified in their enduring commitment to NATO and the retention of an overarching policy of opposing the USSR throughout the Cold War. Yet we now live in an age where the USSR and the threat of Soviet Communism is outside of the popular frame of reference and in which instead the Russian Federation (in theory) alongside Da’esh/ISIL (in practice) are perceived as the major strategic challenges to NATO.[3]
Pragmatism, NATO and perceived obligations
In the context of the potential for the withdrawal of definitive support for continental European NATO members by the USA then the organisation’s future will likely begin to alter and to reflect other paradigms. Thinking from a historical perspective is there room to conceive of a revivified type of military alliance and one which may, in fact, better serve and be more suitable to the needs of not just American interests but also those of its culturally and historically more closely tied allies?
If the main contributors to the alliance are the USA, UK, France and Germany — not just in terms of finance and military manpower but in ideological support —and there is a gradual shift towards discussing differing visions of what role NATO has in the world there seems likely to be divergence.[4] Given the challenging economic status quo for the four mentioned states but especially the USA is there a sense that perceived military obligations also may no longer be consistent with financial realities?
Even in this context, however, the drive for expanding NATO in continental and eastern Europe is maintained with overtures to the Ukraine. Such expansion given the Russian fears about the extension of Western strategic and military influence to the borders of the Federation seem to lack a pragmatic approach to geopolitical relationships. There is surely (?) a need to recognise the reality of Russia as an international power and that it perceives its own sphere of influence to extend into the Ukraine in particular and that this should in some way be accommodated by NATO as opposed to narratives which are put in increasingly antagonistic terms.[5] From the historical perspective the NATO military build up in eastern Europe since 2014 is the largest since the launch of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 which presaged the start of the “Great Patriotic War” and the deaths of c. twenty million Soviet citizens. This is not something readily forgotten in Russian communal memory and the challenge today from NATO may be different but the context is perceived to be very similar.
New ideas for Anglosphere military co-operation
If the US does pursue a more conciliatory approach to the Russian Federation and NATO declines in significance as a military alliance during a Donald Trump presidency what might we conceive of as a more suitable defensive pact for America? One suggestion is that a more internationally minded and culturally similar organisation may be preferable and indeed more effective in combatting direct threats as they emerge but also strengthening the American geostrategic position.
Such an alliance based around English speaking nations and those who have been historically the greatest contributors to each other’s security since the First World War: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK. All states which have continued to maintain links between their armed forces and focused their approaches to defence on close ties with America. Aside from the Vietnam War all of these states were and have been committed to shared major conflicts since 1914 and the defence of democratic states: World War Two, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.[6] Formalising such a new type of alliance would greatly extend US influence and help to sustain its position in an increasingly uncertain world — — the shared political culture of these states also binds them together and in their broad commitment to parliamentary democracy.
If consider the rise of the BRICS states [7] and the potential effects on the current geostrategic status quo there is a need to be able to respond cohesively to a group which is by its nature far more internationally spread than NATO’s current strategic reach.
The potential for the new alliance is also in effect in reality already. There is the now famous Five Eyes intelligence sharing programme between all five Anglosphere members which extends to supporting one another’s efforts in global surveillance.[8] There is an awareness then that extending such an endeavour more broadly to a formalised military alliance is far from impossible but dependant on the vision and imagination of those who determine foreign relations and state policy. In the atmosphere of Brexit and the change in British engagement with the EU, and concerns about the ability of leading NATO members such as Germany and France to ensure their own internal security against Da’esh/ISIL perhaps this is an opportune moment to open the debate on which nations can be regarded as reliable partners in military and strategic co-operation and as to whether the US can sustain its position on continental European security indefinitely.
*NB originally published on my blog last year, before Mr Trump’s election victory.
[1] Williamson, Kevin D. ‘Trump’s Latest Terrible Idea: Reneging on Our NATO Commitments’. National Review, 22 July 2016. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438206/donald-trumps-nato-threats-are-dangerous
[2] Diamond, Jeremy. ‘Donald Trump’s Bromance with Vladimir Putin’. CNN Politics, 19 December 2015. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-bromance/index.html; Tani, Maxwell. ‘Hillary Clinton Just Made Two Statements to Boost Her Foreign Policy Credentials — and One Is Iffy’. Business Insider, 14 June 2015. http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton--russia-and-the-reset-2015-6
[3] Chivvis, Christopher S. ‘NATO’s Southern Exposure: The Real Threats to Europe — and the Alliance’. Foreign Affairs, 17 April 2016. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-04-17/nato-s-southern-exposure
[4] Mercouris, Alexander. ‘Britain and Germany: Calls for End of NATO Expansion and Dialogue with Russia’. Strategic Culture, 14 July 2016. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/14/britain-germany-calls-end-nato-expansion-dialogue-russia.html
[5] Lowe, Christopher. ‘Russia Calls NATO Expansion a Cold War Relic’. Reuters, 23 January 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL23229299
[6] Australia and New Zealand were strong military contributors to US led efforts to defeat Communism in Vietnam.
[7] Girling, Kristian. ‘BRICS, Multipolarity and Membership: The 100–200 Million Club’. Oriental Review, 20 April 2016. http://orientalreview.org/2016/04/20/brics-multipolarity-and-membership-the-100-200-million-club/
[8] Asser, Martin. ‘Echelon: Big Brother without a Cause?’ BBC News, 6 July 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/820758.stm; Smith, Andrew. ‘What’s at the Centre (Center?) Of the Anglosphere?’ The Strategist, 18 July 2013. http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/whats-at-the-centre-center-of-the-anglosphere/
