Political and Economic Issues within the Alliance: The Future of Burdensharing and the Southern Region
Abstract
Over the years, many NATO members have viewed the burden-sharing question as simply a matter of figuring out a fair way of dividing up NATO's direct financial costs. It is therefore not surprising that the debate has focused unduly on the extent of "free riding" within the Alliance and comparisons of each nation's percent of GNP spent on defense. These measures are clearly partial, incomplete, and occasionally misleading indications of the contribution that each ally makes toward the common defense. The argument over burden-sharing frequently masks more fundamental disagreements over Alliance goals and the means to achieve them. Divisions have stemmed from various sources, including differing views of the appropriate political military strategy for responding to the perceived Warsaw Pact threat, and from conflicts over economic issues, including problems related directly to defense economics and the broader transatlantic economic relationship. Since the end of massive retaliation, the United States has pressed the European members to place a greater emphasis on conventional forces and the ability to conduct a successful conventional defense. Europeans, by contrast, have tended to argue that increased conventionalization of NATO strategy risks undermining deterrence by making war more thinkable. This difference of view has had two distinct consequences for the burdensharing debate. First, the high cost associated with maintaining adequate conventional forces for a robust conventional defense caused the United States to push for increased European defense spending. Second, the disagreement exposed the most intractable element of burdensharing -- the costs associated with the failure of deterrence.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 1990
- Accession Number
- ADA257675
Entities
People
- Charles Cooper
- James Steinberg
Organizations
- RAND Corporation