• “Is NATO Relevant?” Sarwar Kashmeri with UK MP Mike Gapes, on Skynews

  • What’s Next For NATO: A “Reboot or Delete?” Robin Young, host of Here & Now asks Sarwar Kashmeri

  • Sarwar Kashmeri & NATO 2.0 on Fox News

  • To preserve NATO bridge it to the EU

    NATO used to be the world’s most formidable military alliance. But, its original reason for existence, the Soviet Union, disintegrated years ago, and its dreams of being a world cop are withering in the mountains of Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, the European Union’s Common Security & Defense Policy (CSDP) has deployed twenty-seven successful military/civil missions from Africa to Asia in the last ten years. Through CSDP, Europeans are increasingly taking charge of managing their own foreign and security policy. NATO is no longer the sole and preeminent Euro-Atlantic security actor.

    But watching NATO fade into irrelevance would be a mistake. It is a tried and true platform to harness the resources of North America and Europe. NATO’s future usefulness depends on its willingness to accept its reduced role, to let the EU handle the day-to-day security needs of Europe, and to craft a relationship with CSDP that will allow North America and Europe to act militarily together, should that ever become necessary.

    It is time for NATO 2.0, a new version of NATO, to fit the realities of an ever more integrated Europe in the twenty-first century.

2 NATOs? The Great Divide?

Research for my book on the future of NATO continues. Conversations with transatlantic leaders, especially Eastern and Central Europeans are very educational. It is almost as though there are two NATOs within NATO. One filled with members who want NATO primarily to protect them against a resurgent Russia. The second full of the founding (Western) members for whom NATO is “the world’s greatest alliance, pre-ordained as playing a role throughout the world.” How this gulf is bridged, whether it can be bridged is a key foreign policy dilemma for the Euro-Atlantic countries. Complicating the matter is defending NATO members against cyber-warfare. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all)  is now in play. What does it really mean going forward? Nobody is sure. Without certainty on this defiing NATO protection, what does the Alliance really guarantee?  Stay tuned! 

Today’s Financial Times has an enlightened op-ed on the NATO divide. Nato’s dilemma in face of Russian muscle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: