World & I Online Magazine  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
 Username:   Password:     Subscribe   Register               About Us | Contact Us | FAQs
18-Year Archive Peoples of the World Book Review Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

Online Magazine
 
  Current Issue
Editorial
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
18-Year Archive
American Waves
Book Reviews
Ceremonies/Festivities
Eye on the High Court
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Teacher's Guide
Traveling the Globe
Worldwide Folktales
Writers and Writing

NATO Must Rethink Its Role to Survive


Article # : 12204 

Section : CURRENT ISSUES
Issue Date : 2 / 1987  2,183 Words
Author : Sir Alfred Sherman
Sir Alfred Sherman is a policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and has written widely on global strategic and domestic policy.

       When NATO was founded in the early postwar period, it was justifiably Eurocentric. The main Soviet threat was to mainland Europe and Scandinavia. The Berlin blockade was a recent memory. The North German plain seemed the most vulnerable sector. The countries of the northern and southern flanks needed political and military reassurance against Soviet attempts to pick them off one by one. Reinforcement from North America in the case of need was the main strategic and logistical problem, and there was a consensus that the alliance possessed the naval, air, and ground forces necessary, provided technical problems were solved.
       
        In 1950, the wider world framework seemed stable. "Containment," as outlined by George Kennan in 1947, was accepted as the order of the day. The politics of NATO members' relationship with the rest of the world seemed safe to leave in their individual hands. Coordination of the NATO powers' extra-European policies as a function of the defenses of Europe and its North Atlantic lines of communication was never attempted, let alone achieved. Member went their own way with their various world and regional interests and responsibilities, real or imaginary; their own way with their various world and regional interests and responsibilities, real or imaginary; their regional groupings; involvement in the United Nations, Commonwealth and other distractions; and their attempts to buy popularity from all and sundry.
       
        Since then, the international framework within which NATO must operate has changed beyond all recognition. The Soviet forces and their allies have leapfrogged round the world, outflanking Europe and the North Atlantic corridor.
       
        When NATO was created, its members controlled the whole of the continent of Africa. Though Egypt, Liberia, and Ethiopia were nominally independent, Egypt had a large British garrison in the Suez Canal Zone, Liberia was part of the U.S. sphere of influence, and Ethiopia was strongly oriented toward its British liberators. Britain had a dominant position in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Pakistan was an ally. Britain had its outposts in Singapore, Malaya, and Hong Kong. Australia and New Zealand were firm allies. The Western Hemisphere was securely protected by the Monroe Doctrine, however interpreted. NATO could therefore concentrate on Europe and its environs.
       
        Diverging policies
       
        Realities were soon to change, but the mood of complacency outlasted them. From the early
... Read Full Article


Look for this article in Ask.com

Copyright © 2004 The World & I. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy