NATO and the wider world: from regional collective defence to global coalitions of the willing

Since the end of the Cold War NATO governments have been wrestling with one question: how to preserve, and capitalise upon, the impressive resources of the world's most successful alliance, in spite of the fact that the defining threat has disappeared? Their record to date has been impressive. The Alliance has been fundamentally transformed, in terms of its membership, its missions and its procedures for Consultation and military action. In spite of these commendable efforts, there is a growing divergence between key NATO governments in terms of their foreign and defence policies. All parties have been forced to adapt to the globalisation of international relations since the collapse of the bipolar system, and it is becoming harder for key allied governments to reconcile the strategies that they have chosen to manage this process. The deepest fissure has surfaced between the Alliance leader, the United States, and the two continental leaders of Western Europe, France and Germany. The United Kingdom finds itself in the increasingly difficult situation of straddling this fissure. The disagreements generated by this growing problem may soon force all NATO governments to confront four new questions: What does NATO stand for, now that it is more than a regional collective defence Organisation? Does NATO need to 'go global' to remain relevant? If NATO governments decide to transform the Alliance into a global security actor, when, where and why would it act? Finally, what would be the costs and benefits of NATO globalisation for key friends and allies outside the transatlantic community? © 2004 Australia Institute of International Affairs.