NATO: Peace-maker or Instigator of War?

Article by Ilayda Nijhar

NATO – The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Established in 1949 following the tumult of the Cold War, NATO subscribed to the principle of a mutual defence pact against the threat of Soviet influence across Europe. With 29 member states forming the alliance, NATO continues to project an important voice on the world stage over major geo-political issues. Nevertheless, since its creation, NATO has only once applied the infamous Article 5 clause after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. NATO adheres to a collective defence principle upheld by the Washington Treaty which has enabled it to become one of the most powerful political alliances of the modern age alongside the United Nations and the European Union. The sheer power of NATO can be noted with its military capacity of over seven million troops and a combined wealth of over $30 trillion. Nonetheless, critics of NATO are increasingly becoming more vigilant over its inefficiency and its apparent incompetence in recent years.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO has struggled to find accord among its member states over how best to interpret their collective objective which has led to it having an ambiguous purpose. The need and relevance of NATO in a world without the Soviet Union has been questioned by many who also criticise the Alliance for continuing to act without a clear intention. It has also been associated with provoking unnecessary aggression in particular areas of the world which has caused increasing agitation against NATO. The aggressive nature which NATO pursues is often affiliated with an imaginary war used as a way to legitimise its survival as a powerful political alliance. It is therefore no surprise that the main culprit in such an event is the US who leads the political agenda considering it is the main contributor towards NATO’s official budget with its total contribution of 3.16% in 2016. As such, the main casualty of NATO aggression has undoubtedly been Russia.

Russia has continuously called for a stop to NATO hostility which has led to relations worsening between both parties. Only recently US Vice President Mike Pence announced Russia was showing “a spectre of aggression” which was all the more important for NATO to remain united and strong and act as a unified front against Russian hostility. This has led to further NATO military exercises being carried out with increased pressure for the inclusion of nuclear-capable aircraft into such exercises. Currently, NATO is engaged with the Estonian armed forces in a large scale military exercise labelled ‘Spring Storm’ with 1,500 troops from NATO contributing towards a 6,000 strong squad on the edge of the Russian border. While these military exercises may be perceived as simple routine training, it is undeniably instigating tension with Russia. We therefore cannot view retaliation from the Russian side as a surprise considering the vex Moscow is receiving. A similar drill has been undertaken by President Vladimir Putin which will see nearly 100,000 servicemen being deployed nearby NATO territory to resist the illicit NATO aggression. While some may identify this as an inevitable reaction on behalf of Russia, the Kremlin’s decision to expel hundreds of US diplomats from their posts was most certainly met with a level of consternation in Washington. Nevertheless, the reality still remains that NATO’s role has evolved and become focussed on ensuring tension levels with Russia remain at a high. But with all the resources which NATO has at its disposal, is this really the right approach we want NATO to have? With so many immanent issues which are currently threatening Europe and the wider political community, why is there not a greater effort to transfer the current resources to try and eliminate some of the most pressing issues of our time? Many NATO member states are currently on the highest level of security alert with the threat of terrorism continuing to dominate political affairs. The main way by which most terrorist attacks are carried out is via illegal movement across countries indicating more provisions must be put into border control. With so much of NATO resources poured into counterproductive exercises, which only stimulate more issues, questions arise as to why there seems to be no effort to use them more efficiently. With NATO’s budget standing at $2.18 billion in 2016, it proves the money is there but is being spent in the wrong ways – or rather – is being controlled to suit an agenda different to its original purpose. With so many obvious flaws in NATO’s efficiency and handling of situations, can we really be sure of its true intentions?

İLAYDA NİJHAR