Is NATO the War on Terrorism's Greatest Victim?

As wars end, diplomatic and political autopsies begin. It is too soon to draw firm conclusions about the ``war on terrorism'' as waged in Afghanistan. But it is not too early to draw other preliminary conclusions. One concerns the almost revolutionary changes now being contemplated in NATO's relations with Russia. Less visible is the deep and self-inflicted wound that, I suspect, has opened within NATO itself.

From the beginning of this crisis, on September 11 th , NATO's European members (as well as other countries, of course) promptly lined up with the US in moral and political solidarity, and with offers of cooperation. For the first time since NATO's founding, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was invoked.

The Washington Treaty was signed half a century ago to meet the Soviet threat at the Cold War's outset. Article 5 is the Treaty's keystone, because it says that an attack against one member of the alliance shall be considered an attack against them all. This article distinguishes NATO from virtually any other defensive alliance in human history, in the sense that it incorporated an open-ended guarantee of collective defence. Until September 11 th , it had never been activated.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.