Theiler 2010 (Dr. Olaf- a nationalist specialist in NATO’s Operations Division in the International Staff of NATO, NATO Tensions No Cause for Alarm, Atlatic Community, http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/nato-tensions-no-cause-alarm)
Efforts from both sides and changes of Governments have contributed to closing the transatlantic rift. Therefore, NATO should be able to define the current level of solidarity and cohesion much more precisely in the upcoming strategic concept. This could then be the starting point for renewed Alliance cohesion. The unpredictable security environment is in fact helpful in preserving this consensus whereas a new existential threat would probably cause new and even deeper frictions. A new imminent threat would rather inspire the formation of new alliances within or beyond today's NATO as the level of threat (-perception) would differ in terms of diverging interests and geography. So far this could be avoided and, beyond media speculation, there have been no real signs yet of a real breakup of NATO in a near future. A recent Council of Foreign Relations Study stated rightfully that "While the bonds across the Atlantic might be frayed, they are stronger than those tying the United States to other parts of the World". The same is true for all European Nations since NATO enables its members to cooperate with allies in a way that would be practically impossible without formal institutions, in place military structures, and - most importantly - defined rules and procedures for consensus building. However, building consensus was never easy in NATO. The current problems the Alliance has to face in Afghanistan and at its home fronts will not make it easier. The processes described above, though, allow for a considerable amount of optimism that NATO will again be able to overcome these difficulties, reach a new consensus and maintain its cohesion.
NATO strong. Allies are all committed to the alliance.
Rasmussen 2010 (Anders Fogh- general secretary of NATO, “On Alliance Solidarity in the 21st Century”, NATO Institute, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_62699.htm)
After the Cold War ended, it was Alliance solidarity that was the determining factor in restoring stability to the Balkans. Every member of the Alliance contributed. NATO-led, UN-mandated stabilisation forces in Bosnia and Kosovo were an example of NATO solidarity in action. Alliance solidarity that was strengthened by a range of NATO partners and other countries, which all saw merit in working with NATO to restore peace and stability in South East Europe. Allies continue to demonstrate an unfailing commitment to solidarity today -- every day. By its very nature, the NATO Alliance encourages and promotes solidarity -- through its consensus based decision making, but also through the way it implements those decisions. To illustrate this point, let me give you three specific examples of how the Alliance is delivering solidarity – and hence security --today. First, we are delivering solidarity through our unflinching commitment to territorial defence. This core task of NATO is embodied in Article 5 of our founding treaty: An attack on one Ally is considered an attack on all. This is the very foundation of our Alliance -- and it is what makes our members feel safe and secure. To be successful in defending our territories and protecting our populations, we need a number of things. We need the right type of military capabilities. We need modern and mobile armed forces. Armed forces that are not static. Forces that are able to deploy quickly to assist an Ally in need. We also need a visible presence of NATO across the entire territory of our Alliance. And we see a perfect example here in this region. We have put in place arrangements to police the Baltic airspace. A range of NATO members are actively engaged -- sharing responsibility -- showing solidarity – and demonstrating a capable and credible Alliance that is determined to defend our territory and to protect our populations. We also need to guard against new risks and threats to the security of our nations, such as energy cut-offs or cyber attacks. And here as well, we have a good example right here in Estonia, with the Alliance’s Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. What we also need is a credible nuclear deterrent. We should work towards a world without nuclear weapons. I share that great vision. But we must retain a nuclear capability as long as there are rogue regimes or terrorist groupings that may pose a nuclear threat to us. And for this reason, we also need a credible missile defence system, providing coverage for all the Allies. The United States already has a missile defence system. Some European Allies have a capacity to protect deployed forces against missile attacks. But of course we must be able to also protect our populations – all our populations. If we connect national systems into a NATO wide missile shield to protect all our Allies, that would be a very powerful demonstration of NATO solidarity in the 21st Century. And I hope we can make progress in that direction by the time of the next NATO Summit in Lisbon in November. Ladies and gentlemen, our security today cannot be viewed only through the narrow perspective of defence at our borders, in the way it used to be in the Cold War. Today, threats can originate a long way from our borders, yet still have the potential to hit us at home. Responding to those threats far away from our borders is the second area where NATO is delivering solidarity today. And nowhere is this strong, common sense of purpose more visible than in Afghanistan. The terrorists who attacked the United States on “9/11” were trained in and instructed from Afghanistan. The day after – on 12 September – the Allies invoked the Article 5 collective defence clause, for the first time in NATO’s history. That decision was the strongest possible expression of Alliance solidarity. And it was taken swiftly and without hesitation. We all considered the attack on the US an attack against us all. And we all stood by the United States in their hour of need. Today, that same solidarity remains a key feature of our engagement in Afghanistan. Every single Ally, as well as many partners, are actively contributing to our UN-mandated mission. When President Obama last year decided to contribute 30.000 more American troops to Afghanistan, the other Allies stepped up to the plate as well and pledged almost 10,000 extra troops. Despite the difficulties, all the Allies showed a clear commitment to solidarity within the Alliance.