repurposing and reinventing nato
TRANSCRIPT
REPURPOSING AND REINVENTING NATO
Keshav Prasad Bhattarai
Amid debates over the relevancy of Cold War period security alliance between North
American and European countries - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has just
concluded its 25th formal Summit at Chicago, the home town of U.S. President Barrack
Obama. The two days Summit that was the largest in its 63 years old history was focused
mainly on building the alliance's capacity to address twenty-first century threats and expand
its partnership in regions - mainly on Asia- Pacific and Middle East not covered by NATO’s
geography. Besides, the Summit formalized its troop’s withdrawal plan from Afghanistan by
2014 and spelt out its decision to enhance the capacity of 350,000 Afghan security forces - a
formidable job of meeting the challenge of nation building, state building and security
building of the world’s most troubled country.
When NATO treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, it was meant for collective defense frame
work for its 12 member countries mainly bound by the famous Article 5 of the treaty that
states, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or
North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they . . . .
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by . . . . the use of armed force, to restore and
maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
NATO was later followed by another treaty called Baghdad Pact that came into existence on
February 4, 1955. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and United Kingdom were its member
countries and United States had joined it as an associated member. But after the Iraqi
revolution that overthrew monarchy in July 1958, Iraq withdrew from the Baghdad Pact in
March 1959. And resultantly the pact was renamed as Central Treaty Organization (CENTO)
with continuation of other member countries.
CENTO worked as a part of NATO on the Southern border of former Soviet Union. Both NATO
and U.S. forces had rights to use the military bases and intelligence out posts stationed in
those countries. But after another revolution in another member country – Iran, CENTO
became defunct in 1979.
After NATO and CENTO, on May 14, 1955, a new collective defense pact came into existence
under the leadership of former Soviet Union named as Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO),
also known as the Warsaw Pact. The prominent collective defense alliance after NATO was
mainly meant for consolidating Soviet control over the communist countries of Eastern
Europe. But, along with the pressures of anti Soviet and anti communist uprisings in Eastern
Europe, first the military structures of Warsaw Pact was abolished in February 1991 and
later in July the same year its remaining political structures were also demolished.
RUSSIA, CHINA, OCCUPY CHICAGO MOVEMENT AND NATO
In early May, there was another international conference on “Missile Defense Factor in
Forming a New Security Space” in Moscow where high ranking officials from Russia, NATO
and delegations from 50 countries had participated.
In the conference, according to a leading Russian news agency- RIA Novosti, Russian
Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, strongly opposed U.S. led NATO missile shield to be
stationed in Eastern Europe and declared that Russia will take necessary military measures
to respond challenges and threats posed by them. According to Russian leaders although
Washington and NATO officials have repeatedly told them that the missile defense is not
directed against Russia but meant to meet the challenges posed by rogue states like Iran
and some terrorist organizations supported by them, NATO has failed to give legal
guarantee that the missile defense system to be deployed in Europe will not be used
against Russia.
Russia is much concerned over the NATO’s planned deployment of the third and fourth
phases of missiles defense in Europe that would be completed by 2018-20. This will have
capability to intercept part of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles and sub marine
based missiles.
Several times, Russian military and political leaders have warned its western partners that if
NATO fails to take Russia in confidence in addressing its concerns, it may deploy its Iskander
series short range nuclear missiles next to that of NATO’s.
On the other hand, back to Chicago, when NATO was busy with its unprecedented Summit,
thousands of peace activists led by some 20 veterans of Iraq War, thronged at down town
area of the city where 51 world leaders were busy with Summit deliberations.
The protests as reported by international media marked quite unusual while some “black
block” protesters - covered completely with black clothing pushed their ways to the venue
where the NATO Summit was being held. This forced both the police and protesters clash
each other – police with batons and protesters with plastic bottles and sticks. Prosecutors
charge few persons with terrorism related offences and some were even accused of
manufacturing Molotov cocktails aiming various targets in Chicago.
Likewise, voice against NATO was also heard naturally in China. The online edition of
People’s Daily (May 23, 2012) has raised question on the relevancy of NATO regarding its
legality. How an organization established during Cold War can explain its justification when
the adversary to whom the defense pact was aimed does exist no more, was its main point.
The second point People’s Daily raised was the unprecedented debt crisis of NATO’s
European alleys – that stands as “the biggest security threat” to their survival- that
ultimately is making NATO obsolete. And the third according to the Chinese daily is that the
two sides of the Atlantic “ have an increasing divergence of views on the orientation of
NATO, that will inhibit the defense alliance go stronger, but go marginalized in the long
run, however at short term Europeans will continue to take NATO as their symbol of strength.
People’s Daily further suggests that in an era of globalization “NATO must change its
mentality” of the military alliance of the Cold War period and reorient itself not striving in
maintaining the “unsustainable life” of western alliance while “exaggerating others’
military threats, pulling new members into it and establishing expansive missile defense
systems”.
REPURPOSING AND REINVENTING NATO
After the fall of Berlin Wall, many former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. Countries like
Australia, Japan and South Korea and other non NATO European countries have also
developed a very strong partnership with the alliance. For all practical purposes, even India
a prominent founder of Nonaligned Movement and a long time opponent of military
alliances, has extended an exceptional relationship with NATO under its Civil Nuclear
program. And even the more confronting Russia and NATO have a formal mechanism to
discuss and find solutions on security challenges and threats they face commonly. In UN
Security Council both China and Russia directly or indirectly had supported NATO led military
operation in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Today the entire strategic environment and the grounds that governed NATO when created
63 years ago, has gone astray - both in meaning and in substance. Similarly, at a time when
any attack upon any NATO member country in Europe and America by any regular army of
the world is most unlikely, then how can NATO justify its existence, is a most crucial
question of the day. Is NATO gaining its existence only to satisfy the ego of some western
powers or only to serve the purpose of some big military- industrial establishment?
Question are many and there are more questions that are pricking the mind of world
community about the dangerously diffusive challenges from intense ethnic rivalry – never
experienced in human history to terrorism, including nuclear terrorism , piracy in major sea
lanes, cyber attacks and the disruption of major routes of global fuel supply.
Indubitably, globalization has made ideology irrelevant in relations among nations. Besides,
global economic integration has left no space for major or minor powers to confront with
each other, but find ways to live and prosper together in spite of their political differences.
And there are spaces in NATO that may help it gain global acceptance even among major
countries like China, Russia, India and Brazil.
In a multi-polar world, former director of policy planning in the US State Department - Anne-
Marie Slaughter - in Project Syndicate says “the actors that matter are not single states but
groups of states that are more or less densely connected”. Working as a “multi-hub security
network, in which the hubs are regional organizations of different sizes and strengths” NATO
can prove its justification in a new and completely changed scenario than at the time it was
established. Similarly, Ms. Slaughter has referred former National Security Advisor General
Brent Scowcroft who has also envisioned NATO in changed context as “a standing military
force to enforce Security Council resolutions”.
Therefore, if NATO wants to maintain its relevancy it must draw its legitimacy from among
all the major countries of the World including United Nations and must develop a complete
but mutually guaranteed security framework for giving NATO a new global role, that in the
words of a Turkish academician - Memduh Karakullukcu , is “the protection of global
commons, the preemption of global threats and the management of global calamities”
effectlively.
‘The Reporter ‘weekly, May 28- June 3, 2012