U.S. Multilateralism: An Expanded NATO?

Of this week’s readings, I found John Ikenberry’s “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age” most interesting. In the introduction, Ikenberry gives two versions of America’s “logic of order.” One logic is more “hard shelled” and centers around American military dominance. It seems much more focused on coercion than the more liberal logic Ikenberry presents which focuses on America’s use of multilateralism. I feel the liberal path is more accurate which means it is worth thinking about how the US’s multilateral relationships could look in the future.

NATO was mentioned in Ikenberry’s piece and I think it presents an interesting example of how some US leaders feel the organization should expand in order to allow the US to continue to be the world’s dominate military force. In statements with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2003, Condoleezza Rice advocated for a “global alliance of democracies, a global NATO.” Notable politicians have also supported a NATO with membership stretching outside of North America or Europe. A 10+ year operation in Afghanistan has proven NATO can be an effective military alliance well outside the transatlantic region. The organization has certainly taken on more of a global mandate since the fall of the Soviet Union which is why some say expansion is necessary.

With proven success in Afghanistan, and more recently in Libya, it’s no wonder US policy makers envision an even larger military alliance posing an even larger threat to potential adversaries. A larger collection of global military might could be viewed as a further safeguard to protecting American military dominance (especially from an ever growing Chinese military). But would US desires to expand NATO be beneficial for the organization or the US in general?

Some feel NATO has survived for so long because of its shared identity and common set of values. Adding members from around the globe could erode the sense of identity which transatlantic states have shared. In an organization run on consensus, decision making could be seriously paralyzed if agendas from every corner of the globe have to be factored in. More importantly, a global NATO, presumably composed of the world’s democratic states, would create an “us vs. them” mentality throughout the world. Those not in the “democracy club” would feel isolated and may seek to form their own type of security alliance. Notably, China would feel threatened and seek to further develop its military capabilities while also seeking to enhance multilateral military cooperation (likely with Russia).

So while America may continue to strengthen its current multilateral relationships as well as form new ones, they must be mindful of the effects. In some cases, certain international organizations are already seen by some as tools of US hegemonic power (NATO being one). If these types of organizations are expanded, their legitimacy will be threatened and new enemies could be created. NATO, in particular, should not be expanded globally. Such a move would force non-members to engage in serious balance of power calculations which would be detrimental for the US and global security as a whole.

References:

Hallams, Ellen. "NATO at 60: Going Global?." International Journal (Spring 2009). p426-450.