NATO's Purpose
What is the purpose of NATO?
NATO, like the overarching goals of the United States, seems to have an identity crisis rooted in several contradictions. It began as a way to curb militaristic regimes in Europe, but was itself a military alliance. It is an organization focused on the Atlantic, but its recent expansion and its abroad partnerships may suggest it expanding beyond its original purpose. Its operates in both peacekeeping and integration, but the United Nations serves the former and the European Union the latter. Finally, there is the question of who is pulling what weight, a question particularly raised in recent times by President Trump. Only five countries currently spend above the goal of 2% of national GDP spent towards the military.
More specific to the U.S., questions still abound over how much NATO is a tool being weaponized to contain Russia. Moreover, during the Cold War, their purported goals to curb militarism in Europe seemed to contradict their policy of supporting Franco in Spain, or the Junta in Greece.
Moreover, NATO's ability or impotency to bind and loose from its organization is also a matter of debate. How much power does and should it have to allow a country to leave and rejoin, as was the case with France? Though it contained the Soviet Union, did it really serve its purpose to create democratic peace in Europe? Most of Europe's dictatorships both inside and outside the Iron Curtain did not join until after their regimes were toppled. Poland or the Czech Republic, for example, were not rushing to join NATO in the 1980s. It was in 1999, ten years after the Velvet Revolution, that these countries joined. In other words, it is possible that democratic change in Europe happened in spite of NATO rather than because of it.
NATO is not entirely devoid of purpose or use, however, its purposes are perhaps are served elsewhere and thus redundant at this moment. This leads to legitimacy issues as seen in Afghanistan or Kosovo as to whether or not NATO had the right to intervene in these countries without the authorization of bigger bodies such as the UN. These missions have been more relative successes to NATO insofar as they have justified its continued existence, but they remain controversial operations today.
Following the Cold War, NATO has been repurposed to an extent, but the U.S. must weigh whether or not it can more effectively uphold its alliances by other means, especially as NATO's "alliance" pool grows big enough to the point that there is no intimacy between any two nations in the treaty.
NATO, like the overarching goals of the United States, seems to have an identity crisis rooted in several contradictions. It began as a way to curb militaristic regimes in Europe, but was itself a military alliance. It is an organization focused on the Atlantic, but its recent expansion and its abroad partnerships may suggest it expanding beyond its original purpose. Its operates in both peacekeeping and integration, but the United Nations serves the former and the European Union the latter. Finally, there is the question of who is pulling what weight, a question particularly raised in recent times by President Trump. Only five countries currently spend above the goal of 2% of national GDP spent towards the military.
More specific to the U.S., questions still abound over how much NATO is a tool being weaponized to contain Russia. Moreover, during the Cold War, their purported goals to curb militarism in Europe seemed to contradict their policy of supporting Franco in Spain, or the Junta in Greece.
Moreover, NATO's ability or impotency to bind and loose from its organization is also a matter of debate. How much power does and should it have to allow a country to leave and rejoin, as was the case with France? Though it contained the Soviet Union, did it really serve its purpose to create democratic peace in Europe? Most of Europe's dictatorships both inside and outside the Iron Curtain did not join until after their regimes were toppled. Poland or the Czech Republic, for example, were not rushing to join NATO in the 1980s. It was in 1999, ten years after the Velvet Revolution, that these countries joined. In other words, it is possible that democratic change in Europe happened in spite of NATO rather than because of it.
NATO is not entirely devoid of purpose or use, however, its purposes are perhaps are served elsewhere and thus redundant at this moment. This leads to legitimacy issues as seen in Afghanistan or Kosovo as to whether or not NATO had the right to intervene in these countries without the authorization of bigger bodies such as the UN. These missions have been more relative successes to NATO insofar as they have justified its continued existence, but they remain controversial operations today.
Following the Cold War, NATO has been repurposed to an extent, but the U.S. must weigh whether or not it can more effectively uphold its alliances by other means, especially as NATO's "alliance" pool grows big enough to the point that there is no intimacy between any two nations in the treaty.
Comments
Post a Comment