[ad_1]
content
Rarely has an interview caused diplomatic waves as high as that of the British magazine “Economist” with French President Emmanuel Macron: In November last year, Macron had witnessed nothing less than “brain death” to the NATO defense alliance. .
A year later, proposals were presented by a group of experts to breathe new life into NATO. NATO foreign ministers have debated the expert report for the first time and a decision is not expected until 2021 at the earliest. One of the most sensational proposals is the relaxation of the principle of unanimity.
This has been the case so far in NATO at all levels. Each member state has the right of veto not only in meetings between heads of state and government and ministers, but also in meetings with officials, diplomats and experts.
Only the so-called duty of assistance is binding on all 30 NATO countries: if one is attacked, the others must support it. But even there there is no automatism, each state decides its own military operations.
Lack of reason for being
The Macron “brain death” comparison stems from a less than original idea: NATO may be in military form, but it has lost its original reason for being. Because with the Soviet Union 40 years ago, NATO’s enemy image also vanished into thin air.
It is true that there have been new images of the enemy with Russia, China and Islamist terrorism. But there is no consensus among NATO states on their assessment.
Especially since the NATO states are confronting each other more and more often as parties to the conflict. The dispute between the two NATO states, Greece and Turkey, over natural gas production in the Mediterranean has almost escalated. Many other NATO states have strongly condemned the Turkish invasion of Syria, as well as the acquisition of Russian weapons by Turkey.
But NATO could decide in each case, nothing. The principle of unanimity increasingly condemns NATO to do nothing.
Not revolutionary
Therefore, the expert group now proposes a relaxation of the unanimity principle. It should continue to apply at the level of heads of state and government and ministers. But among them, at the level of generals, diplomats and experts, majority decisions should be possible in the future.
NATO states would no longer be able to block such unpleasant proposals and decisions at an early stage and discreetly at a low level, but would have to put all their political weight in the balance.
The reform would not be revolutionary, because the NATO states would still have the ultimate veto. However, Turkey and Hungary have already spoken out against any relaxation of the principle of unanimity.
Sure to fail
With the reform, NATO would become a little more public, more lively. But not all Member States think that is good. Many see NATO exclusively as a kind of life insurance, a military defense pact that has so far also served its purpose on the principle of unanimity. Because never since the founding of NATO has a member state been attacked militarily.
In early 2021, heads of state and government will address reform proposals at a NATO summit in Brussels. The softening of the unanimity principle is likely to fail because of the unanimity principle.
Sebastian Ramspeck
International Correspondent, SRF
