France’s ‘return’ to NATO is one of those subjects that provides an ideal opportunity for all those (especially the French) who love to get on their hobbyhorse to take the moral high ground whilst remaining in unwitting or feigned ignorance of the actual facts. Without sacrificing any of the passion, which is not out of place when it comes to major issues, the ensuing discussion would benefit if it took account of the international situation in 2009 rather than the state of international relations in 1966.

What if we all put an end to this masquerade?

France never left the Atlantic Alliance. Over many years, it has taken steps towards rejoining NATO’s military command structure. Ten years have already passed since French aircraft participated in the NATO-led war against the Milosevic regime in order to bring about the liberation of Kosovo. It is also under NATO command that many young French soldiers have died in Afghanistan over the past few months. After the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy, France is now one of the largest contributors of troops and funds to the Alliance. This has led to a situation where only the blindness of polemicists and the skilfulness of our diplomatic strategy make it possible for France’s ‘return’ to be seen as Paris’ latest concession to Washington: on the contrary, France is finally going to be granted high-ranking posts at NATO Staff Headquarters and in the central bodies that it should have long been entitled to hold on the basis of its commitment in the field.

This is not the real issue. Strangely enough, the real issue has never been raised publicly, as it should have been back in 1991: now that the entire Soviet system and the Warsaw Pact have collapsed, what is the point of maintaining the Atlantic Alliance? Why allow new members to join, and how far should it expand? As it is a military alliance and not an economic or cultural union, who are its enemies and its targets, and, at the very least, what are the threats that justify its existence, its structure and its statutes?

Successive Alliance summits have responded to these questions with platitudes: the threats remain intact.

The truth is that, for the United States, NATO’s political role has become much more important than its military one. The Alliance primarily ensures that Washington is able to keep an eye on everything that is going on in Europe. As long as the Lisbon Treaty does not apply, it is a forum where Americans can talk to Europeans before Europeans talk to each other. By providing an outlet for its members’ military elites, and by establishing a right to scrutinise their defence policy and their corresponding supplies, the Alliance facilitates the military and, ultimately, diplomatic transformation of a good many European countries into satellite states. It also provides a guarantee that, save during some ‘moment of madness’ on a par with the outrageous war in Iraq, the United States has at its disposal a pool of countries willing to help demonstrate the ‘international’ dimension of a political and military operation initiated and conducted in Washington.

At the same time, the Americans now keep only residual forces in Europe, and weapons stocks for use elsewhere. Nowadays, nobody dares raise the question of the ‘coupling’ of the defence of the European continent with that of the United States, whilst the disappearance of the Soviet nuclear threat has completely severed ties between the two. Among the Eastern European countries that have rushed to join the Alliance, how many have observed that the Russian aggression against Georgia, an EU applicant country, elicited no response, other than a verbal one, from the Atlantic authorities? What resources would be employed and what strategy would be implemented were an attack of this type to occur against a smaller member of the Alliance? In 2009, whom does NATO deter from doing what? The truth is that we have lost sight of the objective, not only the foremost but the sole objective, of the North Atlantic Treaty – the defence of the European continent.

Many of France’s European partners are seemingly unaware of this. For them, participation in the Alliance is rather like taking out a life insurance policy against an irascible neighbour, whether a country outside the Alliance or, occasionally, another member. It avoids the financial costs and the political risks involved in having a completely independent foreign and military policy. At this Hypocrites’ Ball, the US is masquerading in defence of Europe, whilst Europe claims to bear its share of the costs of the Alliance, as well its share of the sacrifices: the sad story of the military campaign in Afghanistan provides a cruel snapshot of the actual state of the Alliance.

The proposed missile defence system to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic is another stunning example of these variable-geometry truths. The Americans are saying loud and clear that the sole aim is to counter a possible future threat from Iran. The Poles and Czechs, who are convinced of the opposite, seem to be seeking protection against a future threat from Russia. This view is also shared by the Russians, who are furious at the prospect of such protection being provided to Poland and the Czech Republic… countries which they say that they are not threatening! As for the remaining European states, they choose to look the other way, as if the issue concerned only the protection of American soil. The countries of southern Europe are an exception, for they would not come under the ‘protective umbrella’, as it was originally known. Does this make any sense to you? No, me neither.

Now, for the Grand Finale… The 27 EU Member States have two million uniformed troops, but, with or without NATO, and with or without the European Union, fewer than 5% are able to sustain ‘high-intensity combat’, as it is euphemistically referred to these days. Together or apart, we are all masquerading. Four fifths of the members of the Alliance allocate little more than 1% of their GDP to military spending: when we emerge battered and bloody from the economic crisis, to what even lower level will that spending have sunk? Now that a new US Administration has come to power, and now that France, pioneer of the new European defence policy, is resuming its proper place in the discussion and is hosting, jointly with Germany, the next NATO Summit in five weeks’ time in Strasbourg, can we hope that everyone will dare to lay down their masks and that we will finally talk about the really important issue: how and with whom do we defend our lands, our values and the cause of peace in this exciting, dangerous and unpredictable 21st-century world?

Alain Lamassoure, 21 February 2009