Setting NATO’s Agenda: the U.S. and the UK Role in the Alliance in 2001–2017
Setting NATO’s Agenda: the U.S. and the UK Role in the Alliance in 2001–2017
Читать книгу   Download pdf
О чем книга?

NATO has been the institutional basis of both the transatlantic and the Anglo-American special relationships. Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s statements have prompted some allies to doubt the U.S. commitment to European security. Similarly, Britain will have to adapt its security policy if it eventually leaves the EU; however, London will remain Washington’s closest partner in Europe. Both countries would like the alliance to retain a global role rather than a purely regional one. While NATO has been a tool of U.S. foreign policy, it is essential to British defense and the enduring nature of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. The U.S. and British conceptual influence on NATO can be discerned most clearly when it comes to the division of labor between the alliance and the EU, NATO enlargement, the alliance’s agenda and priorities and the development of NATO BMD. London has been instrumental in Washington’s policy of avoiding duplication and thus competition between the EU and NATO, blocking EU attempts to develop a permanent operational HQ. The UK was a committed supporter of the Bush administration’s plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. British politicians and experts have played a significant role in identifying challenges and priorities facing the alliance. The most illustrative example is NATO’s return to deterrence in 2014 compared to its previous focus on counterinsurgency. Are the concerns regarding London and Washington’s potentially declining leadership in NATO well-grounded? Despite the controversial results of Anglo-American policies in NATO, the alliance still fits both countries’ strategic views. Claims of Washington and London’s declining role in European security are premature.

Об авторах
References

1. Bakker A., Drent M., Zandee D. 2017. The Implications of Brexit for European Defence Cooperation. The Clingendael Spectator. Available at: https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/implications-brexit-european-defence-cooperation (accessed 29.06.2019).

2. Butler N., Butcher M. 2008. Bucharest Summit: U.S. Missile Defence Bases Continue to Divide NATO. Disarmament Diplomacy. No.87. Available at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/dd/dd87/87nbmb.htm (accessed 29.06.2019).

3. Marsh S. 2013. The Anglo-American defence relationship. In Dobson A.P. and Marsh S. (eds.). Anglo-American relations: contemporary perspectives. London, Routlege. P. 179 – 207.

4. Mattelaer A. 2016. Seven paradoxes of NATO’s revival as Europe’s primary security institution. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/11/08/seven-paradoxes-of-natos-revival-as-europes-primary-security-institution/ (accessed 29.06.2019).

5. Stacey J.A. 2017. The Hollowing Out of the Special Relationship. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-09-05/hollowing-out-special-relationship (accessed 29.06.2019).

6. Warren P.T. 2010. Alliance History and the Future of NATO: What the Last 500 Years of Alliance Behavior Tells Us about NATO’s Path Forward? Washington, Brookings. 58 p.