Why NATO Should and Must Endure

Military alliances struggle in terms of popularity in the wake of the troubles that effect the world.  The rise of the Islamic State (IS) has brought back bitter memories in the United Kingdom, and throughout the West, of the Iraq War and it’s cautionary tale of military intervention.  The British Government’s wavering over an ongoing anti-IS strategy at the same time of the NATO summit in Newport Wales, has stirred fears of leaders and military chiefs using it as a chance to scheme for stirring more wars.  The Stop The War Coalition, the standard-barer of the far left, who are out in force protesting in Newport support this view.

It is ironic that the left would be at the forefront of anti-NATO protests.  The Foreign Secretary in the first postwar government Ernest Bevin was as a socialist and a former Bristol dock worker and union leader.  Before his cabinet posting he was vocally against appeasement of the Fascist powers as well as critical of Britain adopting a similar stance towards the Soviet Union, clashing with the Communist elements within his own party.  With the vanquishing of the fascist powers Bevin realised that Britain and Western Europe faced a security threat, which was the Soviet Union now undeterred by Fascist powers.  Realising that Britain with it’s empire rapidly falling apart could not risk standing alone, Bevin came to the realisation that collective security within Western Europe was the answer.  To make up for the power imbalance between the socialist bloc and Western Europe this meant calling on American support to back up European deterrence.  After a
succession of treaties between Britain and Western European powers including the Brussels Pact, Bevin became one of the founding fathers of the NATO military alliance in 1949.

This idea of collective security was enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter which declares an attack on one member state as an attack upon all.  For this author this article alone stands as a principle reason for why NATO has to endure.  The idea of collective security is a forward thinking one that has helped discredit the tradition of bilateral alliances.  On this year the centenary of the start of World War One we can see plainly the problems of haphazard interlocking alliance systems.  In the case of World War One a system that was meant to deter war did the very opposite.  Open military cooperation between states accompanied by open dialogue between them is a sure silver bullet for paranoia and arms races.  Why anyone would protest against such a guarantor for peace escapes this author.  This guarantor is still needed.

In 1991 something unexpected happened, the Soviet Union fell, leaving NATO without the main adversary it was meant to counter.  Or so it is alleged.  This set off an identity crisis within the military alliance.  Parties within NATO's member states justifiably started asking what was NATO's purpose.  Many began to openly call for NATO dissolve as peacefully and efficiently as the Soviet Union.  However the unstable nature of the so called 'New World Order' became evident with ethnic strife that followed the Bosnian War in 1994 and the war in Kosovo in 1997.  In both instances NATO responded with renewed purpose as a humanitarian intervention force.  Russia an ally of the belligerent promoter of genocide Serbia aired it's concerns but largely stayed out of the affair.  Similar humanitarian concerns lead to the NATO air intervention campaign in Libya 2011 which eventually resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.  The rise of IS has raised the possibility of NATO involvement in intervening against the newly formed terrorist state.

 

One particular state has had a rocky relationship with NATO, that state is the Russian Federation.  During the 1990s an informal agreement was made between NATO and Russia that the former socialist bloc states would not become members of the alliance.  The problem was this strange and off the cuff agreement was made in a way harking back to the times of when great powers mapped spheres of influence.  The possibility wasn't counted on, at least not openly that these newly independent (either from the Soviet Union or communism) may want to decide their destiny for themselves.  NATO after all and forever has been an alliance where member can formally apply freely if they wish.  Towards the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st these states gradually started to come into the NATO fold.  At this Russia aired fears of encirclement.

 Russia's concerns about encirclement were taken seriously by NATO.  NATO sought to set up diplomatic links with Russia, even establishing a special NATO-Russia Council in 2002.  In 2009 the Foreign Minister for NATO member state Poland even openly called for Russia to apply to join the alliance.  Russia's envoy to NATO however politely turned the offer down.  To this author after making these overtures being made by NATO accusing it of being a menacing and encircling group does not stand up to scrutiny.

And then we come to the Ukrainian Crisis.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has routinely stressed that Russian forces are not involved in supporting the rebels, while NATO and Ukrainian intelligence says differently.  NATO satellite pictures offered as proof for Russian involvement have been implausibly dismissed as being years out of date by official Russian spokesmen.  Despite the mounting evidence of Russian duplicity Putin even more implausibly chaired a meeting in Belarus between the warring parties, claiming with a straight face that Russia was not a belligerent and therefore an impartial chair.

 The question remains from these recent events is what to do now.  What NATO should not even consider at this point is reopening the NATO-Russian diplomatic channels that were cut off after the annexation of the Crimea.  If this Russian brokered ceasefire holds at least for the short term some of the wavering powers within the alliance may call for the easing of sanctions.  Doing this is in this authors opinion would be like rewarding an arsonist for putting out a fire that they had started.  NATO must not allow this ceasefire, any future ones or a general peace agreement be largely dictated by Russia.  Such an outcome would reduce Ukraine to a vassal status to Russia.  The NATO alliance should provide any support to Eastern European member who have called for troop reinforcements from the alliance as is their right.  Poland has already requested 10,000 permanent troops to be stationed within it's borders.  While other commentators would argue that such moves would act as a provocation to Russia, this author would counter that you can't counter a warring party that is already committed.

 

The post Cold War strife and the continuing Ukraine Crisis proves to this author that NATO remains an essential alliance.  Far from being devoid of one purpose, NATO has many.  The principle of collective security is still it's primary function and will remain an important one.  However this principle could soon be tested in the face of Russian aggression.  While the Ukrainian Crisis may prove to be NATO's biggest challenge yet, it's member states must keep their resolve.  The future direction of NATO including who joins it in the future should not be dictated by Russia or anyone else but it's members.