NATO and the Future of Collective Security
An Interview with General Wesley K. Clark
SJIR: What lessons should NATO learn from its experience in Kosovo?
Clark: First, it should learn the extraordinary power of 19 nations resolved and cohesive. It’s an enormous leverage that’s far greater than the military power?the unified determination. Secondly, that it should strengthen several of its processes. It needs greater independence of the military, of military planning. It needs to ensure that henceforth that NATO and NATO military authorities are more closely involved in the activities that could evolve into a NATO commitment. NATO, you might remember, was excluded from the Rambouillet discussions. Third, when we use force, we should try to use force as decisively as possible. We should not stretch it out. Once it’s used, it needs to be decisive. Force should only be used as a last resort. In the case of Kosovo, we broke that rule. We used force before we’d used all legal measures. For example, we were bombing oil refineries when we were still allowing Slavs to receive oil in?crazy! So, we’ve got to do better than that.
Clark: I think there are obviously constraints imposed by the need to maintain alliance consensus, but I think they’re more than outweighed by the value of the consensus.
SJIR: Where do you think NATO’s next Kosovo will be?Clark: It’s difficult to predict, hopefully nowhere, but Eastern Europe remains challenging. I think the best NATO can do is enhance its capabilities, maintain its credibility, and then the nations that belong to NATO must seek to use other instruments such as the European Union Stability Pact to help bring jobs and development to Eastern Europe.
SJIR: How will that pact affect NATO’s identity, the European Stability Pact?Clark: I think that pact will enhance NATO’s ability. NATO is not a full service institution. In other words, NATO doesn’t have diplomats, doesn’t have economic policy, it’s just a military organization. It’s reinforced when there are comparably strong economic and diplomatic organizations with which it can work.
SJIR: So NATO’s role would be complemented by the development of a European stability force?Clark: Well, the stability pact I’m referring to is the commitment to put money into the six nations surrounding the Balkans. But in addition, the EU is building a military force, a deployment force of 60,000. The simple truth is, those forces will be the same forces that are assigned to NATO.
SJIR: Do you see potential growth in that force beyond 60,000?Clark: Yes, I think that they will eventually recognize that they need to have probably double that number.
SJIR: Will Europe use that force as an alternative or complement to NATO?Clark: We’ll only use it as an alternative if the United States chooses not to lead in NATO. But, I would hope that we’ll continue to do our part as a responsible and leading member of the alliance.
SJIR: What steps should NATO take now to improve its relationship with Russia?Clark: I think that NATO needs to be consistent in its principles, it needs to be firm in its engagement in the Balkans, and it should continue to pursue a policy of enlargement. I think the relationship with Russia will improve over time because it’s in Russia’s interest for it to do so. But that relationship can only be improved if NATO insists on reciprocity.
SJIR: Would that reciprocity ever extend to including Russia in NATO?Clark: Well, we’ve said, NATO’s always said that it doesn’t automatically exclude any nation, but that remains to be determined.
SJIR: In recent months the media has weighed the impact of a permanent international tribunal and permanent prosecutor. Do you think Americans should be exempt from prosecution?Clark: I don’t think Americans are exempt from prosecution; we very strenuously enforce the international legal requirements on our own forces and soldiers and procedures. So this is not a question about accountability or conduct; it’s a question about venue, and the importance of the international criminal court is that it’s a standing venue, particularly appropriate to those nations that don’t have the means internally to enforce. So I think that the United States is already living up to those standards.
SJIR: So it would be irrelevant whether the U.S. was exempt?Clark: I think it’s something that has to be looked at very carefully, because if we were to participate in a court like this, we’d have to have some means of assuring that we weren’t politically targeted, and subject to harassing charges and things like that. It would hamstring American commanders and forces.
SJIR: What kind of an international structure would make a court exempt from that sort of political targeting?Clark: I don’t know, and that’s the problem with the court.
SJIR: Is America’s pursuit of national missile defense undermining cross-Atlantic defense partnership?Clark: It hasn’t. It has raised anxieties, but it hasn’t directly undermined it. We’re looking very carefully at the structure of the defense industries of various countries, because we don’t want a single U.S. defense industry competing with a single European defense industry?that would be trouble.
SJIR: Do you see it as a question of economic competition between the countries or of the breadth of the NMD umbrella?Clark: Well, it’s a function of several things. First, it’s a function of national proprietary secrets, in which nations don’t like to let go of these things because they pay a lot of money to develop them?if they let them go they can’t control the proliferation of the technology, and it harms their ability to recoup their investment with other foreign military sales. So, that’s where the problem starts. Then it’s a question of how do you wall-off sensitive technologies. How do you protect it, so that you can still have international involvement but you don’t lose? And of course, the reason they want to be involved is to get precisely what you don’t want them to have. And you’re going to work together and shake hands and be friendly every day. So it’s a challenge.
SJIR: So, you’ve seen the military side of the challenge, and now you’re seeing the private sector side. Would you ever consider becoming political and seeing the diplomatic side?Clark: Well, you know, there are opportunities out there that I’m still looking at in various different fields, and I’ll continue to explore.
SJIR: Now, at the dawn of the 21st century, we see a rising China and a perhaps dimming Russia. Where do you see the future of collective security?Clark: I think that what we have with NATO is a collective defense proposition that rectified the League of Nations problem of World War One. It went further than the United Nations in collective security; it’s collective defense. It’s the strongest pledge that one nation can give another, that an attack on that nation will be viewed as an attack on our nation. And it’s that pledge of unlimited liability that has created the strength of NATO.
SJIR: Will that strength continue through the next century?Clark: It depends on what nations desire. But those desires will be shaped by American leadership. It depends on American leadership.