Share

--

--

This week NATO foreign ministers meet in Brussels for the first time since terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11. NATO has invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in response to those attacks, thereby recognizing that in the post-Cold War world threats to allies can come from beyond Europe.

If threats to NATO can come from beyond Europe, the alliance must be able to respond beyond Europe, too. NATO faces three fundamental challenges that will determine its future. It must be retooled to become a key instrument among the range of tools that the West has available in the war on terrorism. It must consider the implications of Sept. 11 on NATO enlargement. And it should explore the new opportunities for NATO-Russia cooperation, in particular in the realm of counterterrorism.

With the first phase of the war on terrorism starting to wind down in Afghanistan, the West needs to focus on forging a common strategy for what comes next. A common U.S.-$ European strategy toward the greater Middle East and the Gulf region has to be part of any such effort. It will require a comprehensive political, economic and military approach.

Leaders may need military options to respond to new attacks. NATO and the European Union must work together to bring resources and assets to bear. But NATO would be well advised to develop its own military options based on a prudent combination of deterrence, defense and retaliation. One conclusion should already be obvious. NATO forces, particularly in Central and Northern Europe, must be better prepared for military operations far away from home and in defense of common interests beyond Europe's borders.

After Sept. 11 it is not hard to imagine that the alliance or one of its members will be engaged in the Gulf region in the future. Such scenarios could escalate and confront the alliance with a threat involving armed terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. NATO must be able to deter such threats. It is also time for the alliance finally to get realistic about the growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles armed with means of mass destruction; the need for a functioning theater missile defense is getting urgent. Theater missile defense should now move to the top of the alliance's agenda.

Neither NATO as a whole nor any of its allies individually can afford to be put in a position in which it is deterred from taking needed military steps to combat terrorism with conventional forces because of the threat of retaliation against the European homeland by ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, the events of Sept. 11 confirm the need to complete the job of building a Europe whole and free. At the moment, much Western thinking is focused on possible entry by five new members: Slovenia, Slovakia and the three Baltic states. But a new alliance focus on its southern tier should also be reflected in the next round of NATO enlargement. NATO needs a land bridge to Turkey and the geographically related possible fronts in the greater Middle East. The earliest possible integration of Romania and Bulgaria would be of considerable strategic importance.

The response of President Vladimir Putin to Sept. 11 opens a new opportunity to revive the NATO-Russia relationship. It should be fully exploited. NATO and Russia do not necessarily have identical interests on all issues, but they can come together in a common cause in the war against terrorism.

Rather than reopen the issue of NATO-Russia decision-making, we should focus on practical cooperation on the ground and on a common assessment of future strategic challenges. Such cooperation could be far-reaching. There is no reason why we should not consider joint NATO-Russian task forces, including a joint approach to the problem of theater missile defense. NATO foreign ministers should consider an agenda based on the following five points:

• NATO should recognize that threats to allies can come from beyond Europe and it should be prepared to act beyond Europe in response to these new threats.

• It should prioritize and accelerate defense programs that will give it the capabilities needed for a long-term war against terrorism, including the capability to project military force into areas such as the greater Middle East.

• It should step up its engagement in places such as Central Asia, previously considered a backwater of alliance interest, as a new front line in the war against terrorism under the auspices of NATO's Partnership for Peace.

• It should expand and boost its efforts to counter weapons of mass destruction, building on the 1999 Washington summit's Weapons of Mass Destruction Initiative.

• Cooperation in counterterrorism and an integrated approach to missile defense are key pillars in giving substance to a functioning strategic partnership with Russia.

Mr. Asmus is a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs. Mr. Weisser, a retired vice admiral, is a former head of the policy and planning staff at the German Ministry of Defense. They contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.