A Forward-Looking Partnership

Summary -- 

The recent U.S. experiment in unilateralism has shown the limitations of "coalitions of the willing." Washington should reaffirm its commitment to the Atlantic alliance and act with others when it can, alone only when it must.

Robert E. Hunter is a Senior Adviser to the Rand Corporation. From 1993 to 1998, he served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

Since the end of the Cold War, and particularly since September 11, 2001, the United States has been engaged in a slow but steady review of its international alliances. Skeptics question whether fixed relationships with traditional partners are really helpful in dealing with contemporary challenges; supporters argue that they continue to advance U.S. interests and are crucial components of a stable world order. The debate has touched on every element of the U.S. global alliance system, but it has focused on the transatlantic relationship in particular.

NATO has long been something more than the sum of its parts. Designed in part to transcend old-fashioned balance-of-power politics within Europe, it has evolved over the years into a deep-rooted institution with a commitment to democratic values and practices that, along with its unique, integrated military structure, sustains it even at times when its members' short-term strategic calculations diverge. In the wake of the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, however, it is unclear whether the transatlantic partners are ready and willing to overcome their differences and reaffirm their basic common interests in security and other relations: the essence of the NATO alliance.

This is a premium article

You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.