Globalization of NATO
With the introduction of the new post-cold war politics NATO finds itself in a new and more encompassing global position.
With no global super-power to challenge the prominence of the United States or Western Europe NATO has found itself openly exposed and encouraged to intervene in issues around the globe. NATO is comprised of many prosperous nations with adequate supplies and manpower to tackle global issues requiring immediate outside support. So, what is stopping NATO from extending its massive lever arm to aid those requiring assistance?
Inherent Restrictions
From the time NATO was created in 1949 its primary objective was to deter any aggression by the Soviet Union or members of the Warsaw Pact on the European Continent. The treaty’s European focus is enumerated in Article 10, which restricted further NATO membership to European Nations only and Article 6, which constricted its geographic reach to Europe or North America. The treaty produced a strictly European-American alliance; the collective defense guarantee was not extended to any colonial possession or any other associated territory beyound the “immediate” North Atlantic area. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall many “new” European Nations have joined the ranks of NATO, such as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. However, many nations who would bring a mutual-benefiting relationship to NATO are inherently excluded.
To compound the situation, with US forces stretched thin Iraq and European states neglecting to participate in any activities too far away from home, NATO is struggling to fulfill even its current commitments. And while NATO has realized the necessity to operate outside its original boundary lines it lakes the members to achieve this goal.
A New Reality
Throughout the 1990s the United States upper-echelon debated what the primary use of the military should be. Many felt that its primary purpose should be humanitarian intervention and postconflict stabilization. September 11 put an end to the discussion; the use of the military was now obvious to the leaders and the public.
On September 12, 2001, NATO members enacted the unprecedented Article V — the Atlantic Treaty’s collective defense provision. NATO had formal control over the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the entity in charge of stabilizing a post-Taliban Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not the only example of “Neo-NATO” intervention. NATO forces have trained 1500 Iraqi military officers. They have airlifted some 5,000 African Union troops to the Darfur region, and is in cooperation with the AU mission headquarters in Addas Ababa, Ethopia. NATO has also provided diaster relief to the Gulf Coast in reponse to the Katrina crisis, as well as contributing supplies to Kashmir after earthquakes shook the country. They have also commissioned construction projects — roads and bridges — and supplies to the tsunami-stricken Indonesia.
A New Direction
U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs said in December of 2005 that the U.S. and its European allies “now find that our entire agenda is pivoting from an inward focus on Europe to an outward focus.” NATO is clearly heading in a new direction and undergoing core changes. NATO is no longer confined to Central Europe nor is it faced with a super-power as its fundamental enemy. There is a palpable sense of reform permeating the globe. The necessity to develop and formalize relations with countries beyond the “transatlantic community.” It is only the next logical step. U.S. and European Nation’s military forces are stretched thin, spread throughout the world in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, and other African nations.
There is no need for any “radical” change to transpire, however, certain changes must occur. Amendment 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty must be amended to allow non-European countries membership. Also a consensus must be met on the principle of Article 5, the collective security guarantee. The guarantee is a defense committment that each member is bond by to come to the assistance of a NATO member under attack. However, Article 5 applies only in “exceptional circumstances” when an ally is under a “military” attack. It can be substantively deduced that a “military” attack can only come from a legal state recognized by the international community. There is no current threat of such magnitude.
NATO cannot be perceived as becoming another United Nations by expanding their membership. It should be seen as an alternate means of enforcement when global IGOs such as the UN fail to act. Take for example the crisis in Kosovo (1999) when the UN was unwilling to authorize any action against the threat to international tranquility. This was an apposite situation for NATO intervention for the purpose of preserving international order. Nor should pessimists be concerned that NATO may undermine the EU’s increasing global clout. Not only does the EU large the military capabilities, its primary focus is on European reconstruction and intra-EU tranquility.
The issue at hand is not should NATO disband. The issue is how should NATO go about its new world transformation in order for it to be an effective tool for deterring aggression, aiding in relief efforts, and insuring the overall peace and tranquility of all nations.
Source: Foreign Affairs
At first this idea seems very good to me. But then my question is: does NATO have the authority to unilaterally declare itself responsible for policing the world and intervening wherever they see fit? Perhaps not.
Would we be happy if the League of Arab States or African Union declared their globalization and planned to intervene in our western hemisphere?
Personally, I don’t want NATO to extend its membership. You said that you don’t want NATO to become another UN. Increasing its membership would do just that. I think NATO is special because of its small size in that it will be more responsive than the UN.
Ok, point taken. But what do we with situations like Dafur when thousands of people are being murdered and the UN is unable to act quickly and decisively.
It’s sort of a paradox. Give NATO more members and it should have more resources. However, give NATO more members and it should be less responsive.
I think NATO should take responsibility for its history. By this, I mean that we provided guns to the world, both in the sense that we invented them, and in the sense that we’ve been giving them away for centuries; they were traded for slaves, so that African tribes could go conquer more of their fellows, making more slaves; they were given in Japan for the sake of Westernization; everybody knows what happened in Afghanistan during the Cold War, as well as Russia’s contributions on the other side. The vast majority of global issues in which NATO might intervene are similar in origin – the stunting of sociopolitical developement in Africa, the drug problem in South America, North Korea (need I elaborate?) – the prosperity of NATO members is largely due to our ancestors’ having taken advantage of the rest of the world. I don’t think we should allow non-North Atlantic nations into NATO – for one thing, we’d have to change the name ;-), and for another, they are already forming their own groups – but I do think it’s time to start giving back.
Oh, wait, I forgot to mention that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is our fault, too. For those who don’t know, we decided to build a road (God knows why) across Africa, and the subsequent travel, working conditions, and environmental invasion led to AIDS being spread across the continent, though it is only recently come to public attention.
Ok, I didn’t forget, I just felt that this deserved special notice.
I must say that you all have put forth a great deal of valid arguments, but I am in agreement with Chris in that we should not expand NATO to much bigger than what it already is for the sake of responsiveness, although I am not sure as to what nations you were referring to adding to the organization.
I agree with David as well that it would not be okay for us to go around policing the world and imposing our will on others, but we do have an obligation as a nation that is blessed with wealth and resources to help those without. We are all humans and should try to help each other out. When others are being persecuted or oppressed (Darfur, North Korea, Colombia, Venezuela), we have the privilege of being able to offer our help to them. Now I am not saying that we should follow the same foreign policy that we did during the Cold War in propping up dictators in these types of countries so that we can have a nation friendlier to the West, but oppressive of its own people. What I am saying is that we can contribute more to AIDS relief–which I do not completely agree with the fact that it is our fault because of the fact that their own governments are not doing enough to halt the raping of innocent women and girls, or educating the public about the serious nature of STD’s–or to awareness of the problems in the Darfur region, or working to try to get North Korea to try to stop spending money that it doesn’t have on its military and instead supporting the vast majority of its population that is starving to death.
I am not supporting a greater military role for NATO, but I do feel that it has a better ability to tackle problems that arise in a timely manner (which for most of the problems has already passed) and do so diplomatically. I am one who feels that military action is ALWAYS a last option. However, I DO feel that it is an option for certain circumstances when all other options have been exhausted. If anyone wants to attack my views on that then I ask that they do so, but I would like to note that I am going into the military after law school so I am not saying these things as one from the sideline, but as one who plans to be in the thick of it all.