The issue of a looming war in Iraq continues to divide nations at every level of organization. The United Nations Security Council, the transatlantic relationship and now NATO are all split on the best way to resolve the crisis. With France, Germany and Belgium refusing to support any NATO protection for Turkey in the event of an attack on Iraq, saying it would constitute a "logic for war" and a failure for diplomacy, a serious rift has developed in the organization.

A nail in NATO's coffin?

Daniel Keohane, an expert on NATO from the Center of European Reform in London, told DW-WORLD that the signs for the alliance are ominous.

"This is hugely significant for the future of NATO," he said. "It puts not only the political future of the organization in doubt but also any military role it may have."

He said the credibility of NATO has been put into question as a result of several actions, including the Americans' bypassing NATO in the war on terror and the French opposing the use of NATO troops 'out of field', that is taking over missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. While at one time it might have looked as if it would be the Americans pushing NATO into irrelevance, it seems that parts of Europe have lost interest in the treaty organization.

"It could possibly be the final nail in the organization's coffin," Keohane said.

Peter Volten, Professor of International Relations at the University of Gröningen and Director of the Center for European Security Studies also believes that the organization has been seriously damaged by the split.

"Don't be surprised if the whole of NATO comes together today and shows a united front. To the outside world, the message will be one of unity but the damage will have been done. The building will remain in Brussels but the spirit within will be broken."

American pressure attributed to split

Professor Volten said that he believes the seriousness of the NATO split is a manifestation of external pressure from the Bush administration.

"It is not a new thing for NATO states to disagree," he said. "To my knowledge, there has never been a unanimous vote in NATO. The organization is built on the 'argument-counter argument' model as a way of resolving issues. However, this does not seem to be the U.S. way."

Professor Volten told DW-WORLD that he is of the opinion that the seriousness of this disagreement is a direct consequence of the American administration's extreme stance and determination for war.

"The belief that what they (the United States) are doing is right makes it very difficult for sovereign states in Europe. Decisions are no longer being made on the merits of arguments but purely on beliefs," he said. Professor Volten suggested that the position of those countries opposing American influence has as much to do with bruised egos as it does with political principles.

Marc Houben, an expert on European Security and Defense Policy at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, told DW-WORLD that he thought there were definite factors other than international political principles at work.

"Think of the months after Sept. 11, 2001. France offered substantial help to the U.S. but got rejected. That infuriated French officials. In Belgium, the Greens have threatened to leave the government coalition if the government goes to war. And having general elections in two months time, this is not a thing prime minister Verhofstadt wants."

Houben added that Germany's position was inextricably linked to the weakening of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's leadership and his electoral promise not to go to war.

Position and role must be reconsidered

While confusion at NATO reigns, Daniel Keohane said it is difficult to predict what the short-term effects of the current division will be. But he added that NATO will have to reconsider its role, although in his opinion it is unlikely that France and Belgium will maintain their position of opposing the defense of Turkey.

"But if they do, it will be shocking and it will quicken the process of NATO's death," Keohane said.

Effect on Europe could be disastrous

"The effect on Europe of this position could mean the isolation of Germany and could spell disaster for the transatlantic alliance. The Americans would have to go outside the UN with the willing "Gang of 8" leaders who signed the European letter of support. The French and Germans, if they maintain their stance, would not trust the others and NATO would collapse," said Keohane.

Professor Volten sees more integral problems facing the European Union in the future. "This NATO split has huge implications for the European Union. The new countries coming in are mostly pro-American, for genuine historical reasons, and this could cause problems when consulting as a whole on common foreign and security issues."

Marc Houben had his own thoughts on the implications of the NATO split for the EU. "We used to think of a dominant European caucus in NATO, but the real dominant caucus is the caucus of Spain, Italy, Poland, and the UK (the friends of the United States)."

Still, although NATO has seen better times, Keohane maintains there is reason for guarded optimism. The organization may be at the end of its life as a unified political and military alliance but, by embracing change in an ever-changing world, the organization can still be relevant in other areas.