Reimagining NATO: Why and How?
Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has proven itself to be obsolete and in need of a significant refocusing. This is not because the need for a transatlantic strategic partnership has faded, but because the greatest threats to international peace now lie outside of Europe. More significantly, no agreement as resounding as NATO protects the countries that would be targeted by these threats. Therefore, if the United States and Western Europe still consider themselves to be champions in global peacekeeping, they must expand and refocus the scope of NATO, or start from scratch with a new international treaty.
NATO’s primary fault is that it has failed to adapt to a shifting global political landscape. When it was signed in 1949, it successfully addressed the world’s chief threat to international peace, the Soviet Union. Yet, in the decades following the Soviet Union’s collapse, several other countries have proven themselves to be volatile and capable threats to world peace. These countries include China, North Korea, Iran, and now Afghanistan. Despite the apparent rotation in threats to international peace, no agreement to NATO’s scale has been reached to protect the nations targeted by these threats. Such a failure may have dire consequences in the near future, and mirrors that of the Allies apathy towards Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
Just as the world’s more significant threats have shifted to Asia and the Middle East, so too have the most vulnerable countries. Countries such as India, Taiwan, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates all live with the threat of attack from one or more of the aforementioned countries. Despite numerous proxy attacks, aggressive shows of strength, and clear threats, none of these countries are formal members of NATO. While the actions of the aggressors have not amounted to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the dynamic between the aggressors and the vulnerable reflects that of Eastern Europe in the mid to late 1900s.
If it can be asserted that the world’s aggressors have shifted since the Cold War, so too can it be argued that the world’s most vulnerable countries have changed as well. Therefore, if NATO was originally enacted to protect the world’s most vulnerable countries from the world’s aggressors, then NATO is now outdated. This leaves the United States and other prominent members of NATO with a decision; they must either expand the scope of NATO or build a modern alliance to address modern issues. Given that NATO pertains to the North Atlantic, a new alliance seems to be the most favorable option. Furthermore, perhaps the recent blunder observed in Afghanistan can serve as an incentive for a clean slate on international peacekeeping, allowing world leaders who are interested in democracy and deterrence to come together to form an alliance tailored to the issues of the 21st century.
The main obstacle to a new alliance between Western Powers and vulnerable Asian and Middle Eastern countries lies in the economic strength of China. China is not only the United States’ 3rd largest trading partner, but now the United Kingdom’s most important import market. Such reliance on China makes formal relations with Taiwan nearly impossible if the United States and United Kingdom place a higher value on international trade than the security of Taiwan, and to a lesser extent, Australia, India, and Japan. This fact makes China much more of a threat than North Korea and Iran, as their economic strength translates to diplomatic strength and overall influence on the world stage. To navigate this harsh reality, Western powers must first align themselves with countries less threatened by China in order to keep the CCP at bay while forming a new international alliance.
The rapidly developing problem in Afghanistan provides the United States and current NATO members with a justifiable reason to align themselves with countries such as India, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. While aligning with India may be perceived as a threat to the Chinese, using the Afghanistan problem as justification is plausible enough to avoid economic ramifications for the time being. NATO members’ alignment with India, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates also lays a foundation for more Middle Eastern countries to join in opposition to potential terror threats stemming from the new Taliban government. Ultimately, using Afghanistan to include more vulnerable countries in an international alliance is not only justifiable, but a favorable first step towards modern peacekeeping.
The next step towards building a modern alliance against today’s aggressors lies in how countries like China and Iran react to a U.S./Europe alliance with India and others. While Iran is no friend to the West, Israel, or the United Arab Emirates, the sectarian conflict they have with the Taliban makes their reaction unpredictable. However, given that Iran would prefer the United States’ attention focused on Afghanistan, it is unlikely that they would take any significant action. China on the other hand, both acknowledges India’s influence in Asia, and has had multiple skirmishes with the country in recent years. This reality, paired with India’s new alignment with China’s chief economic rivals, may lead them to impose economic sanctions on all parties involved. While such sanctions may hurt member countries, it gives cause for these countries to broaden their diplomatic and economic relationships with other Asian countries.
While economic aggression coming from China does not give cause for strategic or military partnerships with countries like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan, it does justify improving relations with these countries. Given China’s economic strength, sanctions from them could prompt the United Kingdom, United States, India, and other European countries to rely more heavily on the vulnerable countries in the pacific. The increased trade and diplomacy that would follow China’s sanctions would undoubtedly strengthen the more vulnerable countries, as well as show strength and independence on the global stage. Making Europe and the United States less dependent on China, while strengthening the countries threatened by the superpower would be a best-case scenario for member countries. While reaching this desired result would require patience and fortitude, it is likely that such a result could be reached.
The last domino to fall would be China and North Korea’s response to increased trade and diplomacy with countries in the pacific. At this junction it can be assumed that both countries would have grown more volatile, given China’s diminished influence on the world stage and the strengthening of North Korea’s neighbors. While increased volatility suggests that military conflict is likely, the same reasons for such volatility are the reasons why military conflict would be irrational. The strategic alliance between former NATO members, India, and Middle Eastern countries is an imposing one. This is because India boasts the world’s second largest population, and Israel and the United Arab Emirates enjoy their rankings as two of the wealthiest countries in the world. The power of these three new members, paired with the strengthening of China’s neighbors such as Japan, Taiwan, and Australia, should serve as a strong enough deterrent to any armed conflict.
Given that deterrence is successful, the final step would be formally admitting pacific countries into this new alliance. While international peace can never be promised, a modern alliance featuring current NATO members, as well as the vulnerable countries mentioned throughout, would be a significant influence on international peace. Furthermore, it would undoubtedly strengthen countries left behind during the Cold War era and incentivize good behavior by current global aggressors.
