Abstract
The demise of the Soviet Union has been a major cause of controversies on the relevancy of NATO in the contemporary world. Many of these controversies are informed by a superficial understanding of its roles in light of the emergence of the US as a world superpower. Admittedly, the role of NATO has been pivotal in restoring order and tranquility in Europe and Western bloc. NATO’s military interventions in places such as Afghanistan and Syria have been crucial in restoring order in the world. With its revised rules that include global war on terrorism, and drug trafficking, it is clear NATO is even more relevant today than it was before. The two are global challenges, more engaging than even the threat of communism, which was overexagerated through propaganda to serve selfish objects. As a regional military organization, its existence is crucial in strengthening cooperation between states in contemplation of a future common threat. The wars in Afghanistan have demonstrated that regional threats requiring such cooperation could re-emerge.
Keywords: NATO, communism, military intervention and cooperation.Political Science – The Role of NATO
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, scholars and political activists have dismissed NATO as superfluous and unnecessary. With a dissolved Soviet Union meant that the threat of communism was out of the picture. That notwithstanding, NATO remains an important agency in the world order. Machiavelli posited that national security lies entirely within the domain of a state in question and Katylica shared in this ideology. However, he recognized certain external factors that invariably pose a threat to national security in the contemporary world. NATO, as the Atlantic alliance helps states to make vital decisions on the contemporaneous security concerns. These new roles have made its functions even more relevant in the contemporary society. It offers a forum for international cooperation to solve cross- border issues that inevitably hit local affairs. Considering the founding objects are out of the question, it would be interesting to analyze its relevance today paying close connection to ideologies of Machiavelli and Katylica to affirm that it is still a very close to world’s peace and order.
Formation History
The origin of NATO dates back to 1949 Pact with the US as the leader and twelve other signatory states. To date, it has a membership of 26 states of the European region. Many states still see it as serving the dual roles, which include political and military. However, many know it for its military interventions during civil and interstate wars. It was a counter pact against Warsaw Pac advanced by the Soviet Union. It was a shield to western block against communism tide that required strong cooperation if any success was to be achieved. Such successes as Katylica had noted, are only possible with strong interstate cooperation. The destruction of Nanda Dynasty demonstrates what cooperation can achieve. Apparently, communism is now history. This is where the challenge emerges, as many people tend to consider it equally void.
The Origin NATO Criticism
NATO has clear objects set out in its foundation pact defining the scope of its duty. In the line of its duty, NATO has had to engage in a number of proxy wars between the two factions, pro-communist and those opposed to it. This practice was much pronounced during the cold wars. During the time, the need for military intervention would emerge occasionally and NATO offered a perfect forum to mount a unified Champaign against a common threat. The majority of the people opposed to it, base their argument on the weakness it displayed during the time. For instance, its impact remained insignificant despites its intervention, until the US chose to lend its hand in Bosnia. Besides, communism and the cold war are no more. These facts sway the debate in a different direction. The dominant question is whether the time has come to dissolve it and if not, whether its goal should be redefined to reflect the new security needs. Katylica made it very clear that a strong state survives due to the existence of a strong army. If one understood it in this perspective, it would be easy to appreciate the need to strengthen it.
Washington or NATO
The rise of the US as the world’s single superpower has been a major blow to the existence and relevance of NATO. As a superpower, the US has a duty to maintain world order. As such, it has always remained in the front line, especially when civil wars emerge. On many occasions, NATO has demonstrated an inability to deal with emerging security issues without the help of the US. The Afghan situation is a typical illustration of this inability. Specifically, it remained stuck in Afghan demonstrating its inability to restore tranquility in a war-torn state. This failure echoes similar scenarios in Bosnia. Often, success is only felt when the US role is invoked. Obviously, many find this as a duplication of roles that could otherwise be dispensed without its existence. With such realities, the scale is likely to fall for its disbandment. However, this would be a dangerous move. To the contrary, the focus should shift to rebuilding it. Machiavelli’s political theory posits that good arms and laws are crucial in establishing a well-organized political system.
The Washington’s intervention approach is fraught with certain limitations that make it the least priority in restoring world order. These shortcomings are more evident when one opts to explore the ethical questions attached to it. Firstly, it is difficult to see Washington as a neutral agent during such interventions. Many activists have expressed an opinion to the effect that its help comes packed with attached conditions, which are often exploitative. As such, it is an intervention often adulterated with hidden motives. This could be true for most of the occasions. In some other cases, the US uses the avenue to kick out uncooperative regimes. The Libya question is the best example to explain this perspective. Well, Kautilya had foreseen these dynamics when he asserted that local matters falls squarely within the domain of a state. Machiavelli warns against such improper use of power as it leads to anarchy.
The long time justification the US has always advanced is that the local government uses force to silence local dissidents. As an agent of democracy, this leads Washington to feel obligated to intervene. This reasoning would be acceptable if it comes with a different policy, that is, without the use of force, but this is never the case. Machiavelli would disagree with the US excuse. He argues that the sovereign should be free to use force when circumstances demand to restore public order. He considers such use of force as ethical and acceptable if not from a legitimate arm. This argument finds the US as sovereign, unethical, whenever it uses force on other sovereign’s nationals. It would be implausible to figure any sovereign state opting to use huge finances and lose its skilled combatants in a war, without any accruing benefits. Considering that the US rarely cooperates with an incumbent government, such benefits only accrue through unethical antics. Due to this, NATO secures preference as a regional, but a neutral and legitimate organ.
Secondly, Washington’s intervention is an outright violation of another state’s sovereignty. On the face of it, this is unacceptable and unethical. In the end, it does more harm than good. The best way to figure an unsolicited intervention mounted by another sovereign is to view it as interference in local affairs. It is disrespectful to the authority of the other state. This approach affects both the locals and future cooperation between states. Such intervention triggers a long chain of civil wars in a state. The Syrian and Egyptian questions are such good examples. The move causes a huge rift between civilians on political lines. A body of the nature such as NATO would not fight along political lines, but, fights for a just course.
Ethical Issues of NATO’s Approach
In many states, NATO approach is of military nature a fact that raises the question whether the same remain in line with today’s demands for democracy. The argument here is not to view democracy as a virtue, though. The use of force is clearly out of phase with the provisions and dictations of democracy. This position holds water, whether such operations were conducted in a developing democracy or the already established ones. The emerging trend is a continued preference to diplomatic interventions, not requiring the use of force. Understandably, diplomacy may take long, but considering post -intervention implications of military coercion, the former would be the better option. Elsewhere, diplomatic intervention has demonstrated an ability to produce lasting solutions to civil strives. The UN intervention in Kenya in the year 2007 clearly reinforces the success of diplomacy.
The rate at which the International Criminal Court is gaining popularity in the adjudication of state disputes, sounds much alarm to the future of NATO. Considering these developments, it is obvious the question of its relevance would persist. Redefining its approach, thus, may not be the best option, as that would duplicate the functions of other organs. It may not make sense today to consider its approach as unacceptable, but taking cognizance of the change of future position is. However, there are areas that require such an approach. The battle against terrorism is such an area. Well, disbanding it remains out of the frame, but redefining its role might be of help. The US has done its part by aiding the war on global terrorism to the list, but this is not enough. This move would assist in two ways. Firstly, it would empower it to take an active role in contemporary issues such as drug trafficking and terrorism. Secondly, it would help it to survive the test of time and specifically relevancy.
Internal Divisions
The divisions within NATO have been an important extension in the relevancy debate. A majority of its forming states in Europe show substantial disinterest in its activities. The politics within and outside are largely to blame for this attitude. A case at hand was during the Afghan war when the rest of the European states refused to heed to the American call to join hands at a time when NATO was clearly overpowered. Many of states feel that their role in NATO compromises their international relations with the East. The history of formation speaks for its self, and active participation is more likely to awaken the old rivalries. With member states refusing to take an active role, many feel that it has indeed lost its significance. Considering its new roles as a world's cop for security reasons disbanding it would be a dangerous move. Even so, loyalty is missing, and as Katylica had noted it is crucial for the success of any operation of military nature.
Conclusion
The Western bloc and the world, have much to benefit from the functions of NATO. Despite the fact that many remain doubtful about its relevance, the world peace has much to credit for its existence. However, the divisions within it are wanting. The US has been the most active among its member states. Two things occasion inactivity of other states. Firstly, the perceived domination of the Washington as world's super power. Secondly, some Europeans feel that active membership compromises their relationship with the East. Considering its functions, an argument for its disbandment should never be maintained. To the contrary, efforts should focus on restructuring and empowering it to face contemporary challenges. As part of these efforts, the distinction between its functions and those of the US should be emphasized.
Bibliography
Chandrasekaran, Pravin. "Kautilya: Politics, Ethics and Statecraft." (2006).
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The prince. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Mansfield, Harvey Claflin. Machiavelli's virtue. Chicago-London: University of Chicago
Press, 1996.
Seib, Philip. "Public Diplomacy and Hard Power: The Challenges Facing NATO." Fletcher
F. World Aff. 38 (2014): 95.
