U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio thoroughly deserved the standing ovation he received on Feb. 14 at the annual NATO Munich Security Conference.
From the start of his remarkably articulate, persuasive presentation, the tone was friendly if not accommodating, and he rightly emphasized that the ties that bind are far stronger than any forces pulling us apart.
He gave special emphasis to shared cultural heritage and commitment to the rule of law.
Early in the address, his statement that “the two great wars of the 20th century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that our destiny is and always will be intertwined with yours,” brought sustained applause.
Secretary Rubio reiterated areas of serious disagreement, including climate policy and alleged insecure supply chains, and media comments predictably have highlighted such matters. That overlooks the fundamental fact that disagreements among allies are inevitable, and shared institutions exist to try to reconcile differences.
The conference represents the durability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The alliance was founded in 1949 to resist the expansion of the Soviet Union.
An immediate impetus was Moscow’s 1948 blockade of West Berlin; divided Berlin was located deep inside the Soviet occupation zone of divided Germany. More broadly, however, the comprehensive Cold War had already begun. Rubio underscored that history of the division of Europe.
Originally envisioned as temporary, pending a comprehensive peace settlement after victory over Nazi Germany, the occupation zones solidified, and the East-West division endured throughout the Cold War. The end of that conflict followed the people’s dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the reunification of Germany and finally the disintegration in 1991 of the Soviet Union.
Alliances involve tensions and conflicts, inevitably, as officials regularly point out. Recent Republican administrations have been relatively challenging. President Donald Trump has been harshly, publicly disruptive in vocally pressing Europeans to devote more to defense. In fact, during the Cold War, Western Europe, especially West Germany, directly supported several hundred thousand U.S. troops on its territory.
The alliance is fundamentally anomalous. An organization founded to oppose Soviet expansion saw that mission end successfully several decades ago, yet continues to exist. Cold War victory has resulted in debate about the best future roles, not the abandonment of the institution.
Terrorist killers on 9/11 triggered NATO for the first time to defend an ally under attack. French aircraft patrolled North American skies to free our own for attacks in Afghanistan, which became a NATO theater of operations. After 9/11, Munich themes expanded to include cooperation to fight terrorist groups.
After 9/11, Japanese warships patrolled the Indian Ocean for the first time since 1945, as part of a collective response under UN auspices. The APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) organization, created during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, is one relatively recent Asian initiative, and is still defining its operational roles.
NATO was vital to the Cold War victory, and reflects the importance of handling military challenges through alliance structures whenever possible, a basic lesson of World War II.
The Munich conference represents NATO’s strong foundation for policy moves by North American, European and other nations. As Rubio indicated, future efforts must transcend traditional military security concerns.
Promising Asia developments today include not just APEC, but also expanding Japan-South Korea security cooperation, growing Australia-India-Japan-United States defense cooperation (known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, QSD, or simply “the Quad,” and reemphasis of commitment to defend Taiwan.
NATO provides the example for expanding global security.
Arthur I. Cyr is author of “After the Cold War – American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan). Contact [email protected].