NATO:Legitimacy and Current Status

Introduction: The Problem With NATO

After the second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in response to issues at the current time of the evolving modern world and its roles of power, or lack of. The introduction of the Cold War gave NATO the means to safeguard these powers of sovereign states and protect the welfare of those states. However, as the Cold War ended decades later, and NATO was implemented throughout the globe, their presence became more questionable and their authority more uncertain. The current status of global affairs no longer seeks the original need of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its member states, making the original cause for this Organisations’ founding void. It would seem the presence of NATO is no longer needed in present-day affairs.
As time has progressed after the Cold War, NATO has evolved its purpose into other realms of peacekeeping and as a continuing means to end aggressions between states, and to protect its member states from foreign attack and intervention. But it would seem these purposes have often times become misconstrued, unrepresented, and even been questionable to whether NATO’s presence and missions were legally authorized.

Copyright to discoveringsomethingneweveryday.blogspot.com

Failure of Operation Allied Forces

The peacekeeping or bombing mission of Kosovo titled as Operation Allied Forces carried out in 1999, in efforts to end the ongoing foreign and civil disputes, aroused many debates and disagreement whether their presence was legal. Authorised by the United States and carried out by the Organisation, many claim its legitimacy to be invalid, as the United Nations never gave direct approval due to member states disagree upon the proposal of intervention. The lack of UN approval shows a corruption of authority and power within NATO and its working member states. Nebojsa Malic for Global Research explicitly explains the views of the illegitimacy of which Operation Allied Forces was carried out by NATO “There is absolutely no question that the NATO attack in March 1999 was illegal,” going on to state that “Article 2, section 4 of the UN Charter clearly says:”

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. (“NATO’s Illegal and Criminal Invasion of Kosovo,” 26 Mar. 2005).

Despite the vast criticism from this Operation and its results, the mission was defended and remained validated in its causes and outcomes, regardless of the question of legality. NATO carries on strongly today, but at what cost?

Questionability and Tactics

The power structure of NATO and its seeming lack of central authority are all causes for a system that is inherently corrupt and potentially dangerous, proving to be a powerful weapon in the hands of whoever seeks to abuse it. Recent confrontation and defense tactics between NATO and non-member state Russia are undergoing speculation. NATO’s hostile approaches could and are proving to be a potential disaster for the Organisation, as well as the welfare of its member and non-member states. The entire purpose of NATO could become a conflicting interest as its current approaches while dealing with Russia are presently demonstrating results which are the exact opposite of what the Treaty originally sought to accomplish. While “NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means,” this objective is becoming more questionable (“What is NATO?” n.d.). Criticism of the Organisation continues to arise as their jurisdictive aim seemingly becomes more forceful and unnecessary. An article for Zero Hedge states the authors questioning the proposed ploy:

NATO found another excuse for war, assessing that it may now have grounds to attack Russia when it announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyberattack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country (“Hacked Emails Confirm NATO Push to Provoke, Escalate Conflict With Russia,” 1 July 2016.)

In his article for The American Conservative, Daniel Larison explains how the rebuttal of Max Boot’s defending NATO actually displays its weaknesses and inherent flaws instead of supporting the system it claimed it sought out to originally defend. Boot’s goes on to state that:

In the first place, NATO provides a forum outside the UN that can legitimate American- led military interventions. Even when the UN isn’t willing to go along, as in Kosovo, NATO can step forward and provide the kind of multinational support that is increasingly required for effective military action in the modern age. Put another way, the existence of NATO signals to the U.S. public and to the broader world community that the U.S. is not simply a rogue power; it is still the leader of the Free World, and it typically fights either with the concurrence of the Atlantic Alliance or, when that isn’t possible, with the support of at least a substantial number of its members (as was the case in the Iraq War). (“The Problem with Nato,” 05 April 2016).

This statement by Boot’s, although meaning to defend NATO, only draws attention to the fact that the Organisation has in fact illegally acted without UN approval, voiding any legitimacy to the Organisations’ name and title. The fact that this event took place, and was even defended, proves that NATO’s prowess is mighty and their tactics are inept, creating a dangerous scenario for further situations, such as the one currently faced with Russia.

Illegal Defence

Larison continues to explain how “The U.S. has certainly used NATO to provide political cover when waging illegal and unnecessary wars, but that doesn’t make those wars any more legitimate. This practice is neither desirable for the U.S. nor healthy for the alliance itself.” By using NATO in this means, it sends a selfish, hostile message to the rest of the world, which may influence other NATO member states to use as well. With this line of thinking and capacity for corruption within the Organisation, personal state vendetta and military alliance trends could take over instead of the stated sole purpose of furthering welfare and defense of the member states.

NATO has strayed so far from their original statement of mission that “…the Defence and Security program at Transparency International ranked NATO member and partner states’ vulnerability to corruption on a scale from A (low risk) to F (critical risk)…found surprisingly high vulnerability across the 32 governments’ military operations, which received, on average, a grade of D.” (“How Corruption Undermines NATO Operations,” 2 Dec. 2015).

Yet still, countries rely on their efficiency and plan of action to resolve/ prevent global scale conflicts. With all of these criticisms, how is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation still depended upon on or even allowed to be a supposed solver of these issues? While in Afghanistan, NATO failed to accomplish what they came to do, leaving the country in a state which was just as badly corrupted as they found it. To further this, Karolina Maclachlan for Defense One explains how:

In Afghanistan, for example, corruption had a corrosive impact on military operations. It undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government, aided insurgent recruitment, and hollowed out the national military and police forces slated to take over from NATO troops. The International Security Assistance Force, mandated to create sustainable security in the country, undermined its own objectives through its initial inattention to the problem.

Just like in the example of Kosovo, Afghanistan is still by no means a country whose stability was strengthened by the presence of NATO forces or its attempted operations for peacekeeping.

Deviation From the Original Mission: Afghanistan

As previously stated, NATO claims its mission to be that of one which is focused primarily upon the defense of its member states. However, actions taken by NATO would seemingly prove otherwise. Again, Daniel Larison for the American Conservative makes a statement on how “NATO has functioned for the last fifteen years mainly as a vehicle for enabling the U.S. to start wars or pulling European allies into supporting U.S. wars outside Europe, which means it has spent the better part of the last two decades abandoning its original mission as a defensive alliance.” Larison also explains how this can become an alarmingly growing issue. NATO member states which do not happen to share the same plans of conflict resolution as its fellow states may still feel pressured to sign off on NATO approval of such missions and policies, given that their status as a NATO member could very well be at stake. For an organization which represents some of the worlds leading groups of power, this atmosphere is toxic, threatening, and undiplomatic.
The wars fought in Afghanistan have seen nothing but chaos and a steadily rising death toll. As the years drag on, the United States involvement in these affairs and their interference becomes more questionable. Like that of Kosovo, the unresolved conflicts in Afghanistan and the interference of NATO operations are proving as another case where ulterior motives are frequently debated. Ahmad Masood for RT International elaborates the exert at which NATO’s forces have made no real improvement: “The Taliban has seized part of Afghan’s southeastern Helmand province and heavy clashes with government forces have already been taking place there for several weeks. British troops were redeployed to the province after the militants took control of the town of Sangin a year after NATO forces formally ended their combat operations in Afghanistan.”

Starting in 2001, NATO sent the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, to Afghanistan. ISAF claimed its presence in Afghanistan was to secure the surrounding areas from local threats of terroristic groups, particularly the Taliban, as well as to assist the Afghan government in rebuilding its state to be able to take back from rebel forces. The capital of Kabul was the main focus point. Skip ahead to 16 years current day, and the efforts of this area would seem minuscule. Kabul has been left terrorized and remains in ruins, far from the image of rebuilding and restoration which NATO’s ISAF operations stated mission. Vladimir Putin’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, spoke on the issue, stating that: “Assessing the results of the actions of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, it can be said that they have completely failed in their mission” (“‘US and NATO Operation in Afghanistan Has Failed’ — Russian Presidents Special Envoy,” 29 Dec. 2015). If NATO and its forces cannot complete or carry out the purpose of their stated missions, then what purpose remains in the Organisation itself?

The original mission of NATO in the mid-1900’s may have been an enduring, well-purposed effort to cease and control the hostilities as a result of the conflicting Cold War. However, the Cold War has ended. Since its resolution, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has poorly molded and shaped its facilities to cater to the ever-changing future of global affairs and the conflicts and uncertainties which it produces. Somewhere between the drawing of the mission statement and the implementation of its operation, the purpose of this Organisation has been lost to a world of corruption and those who know how to abuse their power.
The use of NATO in the twenty-first century is no longer needed nor is it efficient in the efforts to safeguard its member states or to prevent conflict from one nation to another. The Organisation is an outdated framework of methods which are no longer congruent with the tides of modern diplomacy. The past and current methods of operational missions NATO has used have been questionably carried out, hostile in nature, and unresponsive to their task mission.

copyright to iamisatthedoors.wordpress.com

References
Durden, Tyler. “Hacked Emails Confirm NATO Push To Provoke, Escalate Conflict With Russia.” Zero Hedge. N.p., 1 July 2016. Web. 29 Dec. 2016.

Larison, Daniel. “The Problem With NATO.” The American Conservative. N.p., 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 30 Dec. 2016.

Maclachlan, Karolina. “How Corruption Undermines NATO Operations.” Defense One. N.p., 2 Dec. 2015. Web. 01 Jan. 2017.

Malic, Nebojsa. “NATO’s Illegal and Criminal Invasion of Kosovo.” Global Research. N.p., 26 Mar. 2005. Web. 29 Dec. 2016.

Masood, Ahmad. “‘US and NATO Operation in Afghanistan Has Failed’ — Russian Presidents Special Envoy.” RT International. N.p., 29 Dec. 2015. Web. 08. Jan. 2017.

“What Is NATO?” NATO. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Jan. 2017.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade