Trans-Atlantic Council: Global Security

Conference Report

By: Krystle Corpuz

The conference emphasized a need for a stronger United States and European front against terrorism, globalization, global warming, and proliferation of WMD. There were several key issues addressed during the panel discussion:

1. Middle East

The United States and Europe never really saw eye to eye when it comes down to issues in the Middle East. The issue of Iraq has significantly decreased Trans-Atlantic relations. The panel emphasized: cooperation in one place will not mean peace everywhere.

2. NATO

The subject of the current Middle East crisis has pointed towards efforts to make NATO a "Global NATO." Global NATO will emphasize US-European strength as a political instrument used to maintain peace and stability in the world. NATO was first meant to stop the Warsaw Pact, now efforts are being made to open NATO membership to non-European democratic states. The main argument against such an expansion is the fact that it will become another United Nations. The counter-argument is the desire to make NATO “think” bigger in terms of international influence. The main difference between a “Global NATO” and the United Nations will be a push for equality among member nations. NATO will act independently from the United Nations and most of all it will not have to gain support from the United States, Canada, or any powerful western country. It defeats the entire elitist west and appeals to many non-European democratic state who desire to be a part of global decision making. If these nations wish to be a part of NATO, then they must meet NATO’s mission and be able to contribute to security goals, which is essentially, “an attack on one means an attack on all.” This proposed global alliance will build resources necessary for the 21st century.

3. United States Credibility

In the last five years, there has been a decrease in American power and credibility. Europe thinks the United States has lost its balance and those who agree with our policies find themselves in the least desirable position amongst their countrymen. President Bush was accredited to be an aggressive politician who had forsaken the golden rule of "patience diplomacy." According to the panel this resulted in disaster. The panel suggested a safer tactic when it comes to diplomacy, which means talking to adversaries rather than threatening them and preventing extreme actions to be taken that involve militant intervention. In order to counter the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons, the United States must take a pro-active stance against countries who own WMD and this means direct negotiations with Iran and strategically including the European Union in finding solutions to solve proliferation problems. Global warming is also another area where the United States must take lead. The United States plays a pivotal role in finding ways to allocate significant amounts of resources to research and development for safer environment alternatives.

4. United Nations Stance

There has been much controversy over the ineptitude of the United Nations. There have been increasing arguments that the United Nation’s efficiency in decision making is ineffective because of budget restrictions. It is hard to allocate significant amounts of spending if 150 members must decide and vote on every bill. Moreover, the fight over who will be a part of the permanent five is increasing tensions among member nations. The current fight to place either India or Brazil on the Security Council is deterred by the influence of Japan and Germany who want to be a part of the permanent five. At the same time, the permanent five, who are the victors of WWII, are reluctant to give up their power. Hence, a desire to change infrastructure and power come into play.