Nato was founded 70 years ago, in order to prevent the great war between the West and the East. And the has managed. It has blocked the threat from the block enemy successfully, without ever having been in a hot war with him came. There, where Nato forces were deployed, was it on the basis of resolutions of the security Council of the United Nations or the organization for security and cooperation in Europe, OSCE). The often-criticized exception, the war effort of Nato in the former Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war, ended the genocide and ethnic cleansing, because Nato did not want to see members – including Germany – the murders no longer stand by. The first and so far the only case of collective defence is not entered on the basis of a military attack by an enemy state, but by the stop of the terrorist network Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center in New York on 11. September 2001. And still a bit bored of Nato: jointly with the project of European unification the German in such a way that of this great country in the middle of Europe in no danger of running out. Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty organization, so anything other than a war-making Alliance. She is the most successful Alliance to prevent and end Wars, it was in the history of the world ever.
the core of the Treaty on which Nato is based, is the musketeer principle "one for all, all for one". It is in article 5, which States that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all Alliance partners. The Translation of this obligation is that We are ready to die for the freedom of our partners. Admittedly, This sentence sounds today, especially for us in Germany, strange, foreign and threatening. But he was also behind the famous phrase of U.S. President John F. Kennedy said in Berlin: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, I, as a free man proud to be able to say, 'I am a Berliner'".
Europe threatens the re-measurement to come under the wheels
the Nato article 5 was ultimately the reason why West Berlin remained free, and the Federal Republic of Germany never had to worry about the Soviet Union or the countries of the opposing Warsaw Pact countries involved in a war. And it is this article, the poles, Balts and other Eastern Europeans perceive as a guarantee for their freedom today. In Germany, the often expressed criticism of Nato's eastward expansion, which serves as a justification for the aggressive behavior of Russia in the Crimea and in the Ukraine, denied, by implication, these States have the right to liberty and security, we were West Germans for decades entirely by Nato enjoy.
Today, we live in a fundamentally different world political environment, and not only since the annexation of the Crimea. Where once clear were distinctions, sir, seem to be the boundaries to be blurred. While the threat of nuclear war, with their destructive potential continues to exist, has expanded the digital Revolution, the face of war to another, in its many facets, is hardly tangible Dimension. New power centers have emerged in addition to the two poles of Washington and Moscow. It is this unpredictability of the world situation of Nato at its 70. Anniversary of its founding is so much more dangerous.
It is especially Europe that threatens to come in this re-measurement under the wheels. This is due to the increase in the Differences among European partner countries and, above all, a fundamental reorientation of U.S. policy. If we do not want Europe to fall back into the insignificance, then, we must ask, given the current internal difficulties, as it used to be able to preserve the unity of Nato and its allies occurred. A particular challenge is the triangular relationship France-Nato-Germany. France wanted to prevent, under the leadership of de Gaulle's one-sided dependence of Europe from the United States, and in 1966 refused to allow the French troops under the Nato command. France was also sceptical when it came to the question of German rearmament. The arguments in favour outweighed, ultimately, because the German government managed to keep the balancing act between re-arming and humility in the face of recent history.
The debate about the contributions is as old as Nato itself
the Pleven-Plan, France tried to Germany is particularly closely into European structures. From this time the idea of a European army occurs because the project failed, however, at the time of the French Parliament. Germany was re-armed, and in the Nato structures integrated. From this time, also, the high proportion of the United States to the defence is taken at the expense of Europe within Nato. To ask if today, right, of the United States a stronger financial participation of the European member States to the defense loads, because they both economies, but equally strong, was a deliberate strategic decision that Europe, and especially Germany, should not only should have no military skills for their own defense, because, especially with a view to the experiences with the two Germany's world wars - the control of this military violence in the leadership of the United States.More about
Schulz betting fears equip Nato countries come to the USA in the dispute over the military budget, contrary to
The cooperation between States is always a complex undertaking, often it is mainly the question of the national financial contributions for the collective security, which makes for tensions. This debate, which we observe today, is as old as Nato. It has always paid off, to find a common way, because more is more. Alone have proven to be, particularly in Europe, historically considered to be dangerous.
This applies to Donald Trump as well as for Germany. While it is true that Donald Trump represents the transatlantic Alliance into question, and in his Twitter messages, and calls again and again, according to strong adherence to the sognannten Two-percent target, so the investment of two percent of the gross domestic product of the member States in national defence budgets. And it is also true that he sets the TRANS-Atlantic catch tables relationship with his protectionist policies and his nationalist under specific pressure. But it is also true that we are currently listening to on the operational level of Nato is very much Positive about the cooperation between the United States and its European partners.