Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance

By Rupert Murdoch
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

In the aftermath of World War II, statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic recognized that the defense of freedom would require the active engagement of a new generation of leaders. The result was the Atlantic alliance. In the six decades that followed, this alliance helped the West prevail against Soviet communism and ensured the advance of democracy from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Today we may be tempted to bask in our achievements and wax nostalgic about all we have been through. But this is no time for nostalgia. At this moment, our alliance now finds itself threatened on several fronts:

First, by the growing appeal of protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic.

Second, by the terrorists who target civilians in all our countries.

And finally, by a Europe that is losing its faith in the values and institutions that have kept us free.

Nowhere is this crisis of confidence more apparent than in the failure of nerve we see in Afghanistan. After the attack of September 11, it was clear that America and its allies needed to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven. It was also clear that we needed to help the Afghan people replace the Taliban with a free government that would build a more hopeful future.

Unfortunately, far from reflecting our unity, NATO's entry into Afghanistan has exposed its divisions. Instead of standing together as full and equal partners, a handful of alliance members are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the lack of equal burden sharing threatens the future of the alliance. He is right.

We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. It also means that reform will not come from within.

In other words, a strong and successful Atlantic alliance will have to ground itself more on shared principles rather than accident of geography. And we need to show we are serious about defending those principles by standing with those who are standing up for them.

NATO's agreement to invite Albania and Croatia to become members is a welcome start. So is the somewhat weaker commitment that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO at some point.

But we need to go further. As a rule, when an organization expands, the expansion dilutes its principles. For today's NATO, it is just the opposite. Around the world, there is no shortage of nations who share our values, and are willing to defend them. These include countries like Australia, which sent troops to Iraq; Israel, which has been fighting Islamic terrorism almost since its founding; and Japan, which generally follows a more "Western" policy than most of Western Europe.

Others have not reached the level of development these countries enjoy. But some are working hard to get there, and would be strong partners down the road. At the very least, the U.S. needs to support them as they struggle against the dark forces trying to pull them down.

Right now the U.S. has a test in its own backyard. Colombia is a nation that is fighting poverty, battling the drug lords, and taking on terrorists backed by foreign governments. Its citizens have suffered terribly from violence, and want peace and opportunity. So its brave and innovative president, Álvaro Uribe, is trying to bring the rule of law to people who have not known it.

All President Uribe asks of us is that we ratify the trade agreement we have negotiated with his nation. By ratifying this agreement, we would open an important market for American goods. We would demonstrate to millions in our hemisphere that the path to prosperity lies in freedom and democracy. And we would give strong moral support to a leader struggling to bring hope and opportunity to his people in an important part of the world.

Everyone knows this, Democrats as well as Republicans. Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has effectively put off the bill by not scheduling a vote. We need to make clear to the leadership in Congress what killing this trade deal would mean.

Throughout Colombia, a defeat for the trade deal would be confirmation that the U.S. is not an ally you can count on. Throughout Latin America, a defeat for the trade deal would be exploited by thugs like Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, who would tell the people, "See, the Americans will never accept you as equals and partners." And throughout the world, a defeat for the trade deal would be taken as another sign that the U.S. will not stand by its friends when the going gets tough.

Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the U.S., puts it this way: "The most important geopolitical mistake the United States could do today . . . is not ratifying that treaty."

The world is watching. The same values that we are trying to uphold in the Atlantic alliance are at stake now in Colombia. And if we fail to support them in Colombia, it will be harder to revive them in the alliance.

As a man who was born in Australia, went to university in Britain, and made my home in America, I have learned that shared values are more important than shared borders. If we continue to define "the West" or "the Alliance" as a strictly geographical concept, the alliance will continue to erode. But if we define the West as a community of values, institutions and a willingness to act jointly, we will revive an important bastion of freedom and make it as pivotal in our own century as it was in the last.