The summit of 2002 in Prague deled with further progress of the alliance. The United States urged the member countries that one of NATO’s primary objectives should be prevention and fight on terrorism.
The most recent events in Iraq gave the alliance a new question. The United States declared war on Iraq. But other NATO member countries declared that “ USA is not NATO” and that they prefer a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Turkey, as a NATO member was put under US pressure to provide its ground and air space for US troops as a launching point. If this Turkey agrees, it risks an attack from the Iraqi side. NATO agreed to begin planning defense measures to aid Turkey in the US-led war on Iraq. At first, France, Belgium and Germany held objections to this resolution. Recently, when France didn’t show any signs of backing down in its opposition to US plans to force Iraq to disarm, France was shut out of talks. Germany and Belgium then dropped objections. In summary, the role of NATO in this decade was important, and the alliance was ironically more busy than ever. Several new goals for NATO were created. To preserve peace, to fight and prevent terrorism, and to enlarge its boundaries.


NATO future


NATO, as a treaty organization has now over 50 years. It was created to prevent an attack of the Soviet Union. But after the fall of the Berlin wall, there was no more use for it, some say. But there is still a risk at a lower level. There will always be instabilities of ethnic strife, ultra nationalism and fanaticism of one kind and another that lead to terrorism. So there is still a worry about the stability in Europe and other areas that may affect the stability of Europe. I would like to argue that NATO has still something to offer. It is something unique. It has multinational integrated military forces, a political-military command structure and the infrastructure bases, airfields, warehouses and long-range communication that provide a backbone of mobility and the possibility of action. It’s true that there’s no need for that kind of strength and numbers as before. I think that the US presence in Europe is seen as a stabilizing element. Also the United States feels that with commitment to Europe, it gains something that it missed in the first half of the century. The ability to have influence in shaping events rather than being drawn into them. The question is if the commitment is big or small enough. There is also a possibility that Europe will create its own defense structure.