One of the main problems is NATO’s relationship with other organizations and non-member states. The operation in Afghanistan helped NATO reinforce its ties with the United Nations, providing extra legitimacy to NATO missions. Although NATO seems to be turning into the UN’s instrument for security, the relationship between these two institutions must be clarified and better identified. We know for sure that NATO’s activity zone will continue to expand worldwide. However, NATO must convince two principal actors in order to realize this expansion without much complication.One of these actors is Russia. NATO must reassure this country, which believes NATO’s enlargement is directed against it. However, there is nothing that gives the impression that these two actors trust each other. The list of disagreements is considerably long: Iran, the Caucasus, Ukraine, weapons of mass destruction, the implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. A bigger role for public diplomacy in relations between NATO and Russia may constitute a first step to ease bilateral tensions. Furthermore, all NATO members do not think the same of Russia, a fact that makes it hard to adopt a common line not only on relations with this country but also on other global issues. This brings us to the second actor with which NATO has difficult relations: the European Union.
The main imbalance in the EU-NATO relationship is that calls for closer cooperation always emanate from NATO. While NATO is conducting a policy of rapprochement with other organizations, such as the African Union (AU), with which an important and efficient cooperation is in place, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which wants to establish a more formal, methodical and institutional relationship with NATO, there have been serious setbacks with the EU. At a time when Pakistan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are eager to develop their cooperation with NATO, some of the EU countries perceive NATO as an obstacle for their countries and the EU’s global ambitions. This state of affairs undermines NATO’s efficiency and does not help the EU become a global player, either. As a result, both organizations are on the losing side, and Europe’s security suffers from it.
The EU’s unwillingness to engage in dialogue, not inviting NATO to EU summits while EU representatives are always present at NATO reunions, the fact that the bureaucrats of these organizations, both of which have their headquarters in Brussels, describe each other as “the other side of the city” and the apparent will of some of the EU countries to keep their distance from the United States allow us to see which EU members aim to engage the EU in global policies and which of them do not. This disagreement makes difficult for the EU to analyze global threats and develop countermeasures. As a result, the EU is becoming an organization that only watches global trends, without having the chance to steer them. None of this, naturally, helps EU integration succeed.
Washington needs Europe to regulate its relations with Moscow, and Europe needs the United States to maintain the balance with Russia. The only way to contribute to global stability may be through ensuring Russia’s trust. The global system is not simply a puss-in-the-corner game; the game has become much more complex. However, not everyone sees it that way.
