NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule?
Abstract
Since its creation in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has developed a tradition of making decisions by consensus. This requirement for general agreement among all members on positions or actions taken in the name of NATO has survived serious internal rifts and four rounds of enlargement. Yet influential Americans are asking whether the consensus rule impedes the ability of NATO to make rapid and effective decisions-especially on military operations. Concerns predate the agreement reached in November 2002 on a fifth round of enlargement involving seven Central and East European states, but they have also been fueled by resentment over intra-Alliance divisions related to the war in Iraq. In May 2003, the Senate gave voice to these concerns by asking the Bush administration to raise the possibility of changing the consensus rule and "suspending" a NATO member before the North Atlantic Council Options exist to facilitate decision making on the planning and conduct of operations that would not fundamentally change the role of consensus, a procedure whose advantages should not be underestimated. However, a judicious balance needs to be found between the desire for efficient military action in response to common threats and the need to ensure that all members have a chance to be heard. Moreover, if the United States were to seek changes, it would face a Catch-22: the consensus rule can only be altered by consensus
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 2003
- Accession Number
- ADA421879
Entities
People
- Leo G. Michel
Organizations
- National Defense University