NATO is the West’s main military alliance. It is often the overly sharp edge to keep or push certain countries into the US line. Despite the West being highly disagreeable to dissension about its efficacy, including most of its main media cheerleaders, NATO is not a “sacred geopolitical cow”. This is underscored–be it in the fight over Ukraine or in many other countries beyond. At its current rate of failure in recent decades, one must worry if it will bring the entire world, including India, to the brink of economic meltdown, if not doomsday. NATO, thus, should be closed down as an important humanitarian and peace-building gesture.
To begin in concrete terms to support this perspective as having legitimacy, let us look at the title, “Time for NATO to Close its Door” in Foreign Affairs. This is a well-thought article in a very top foreign policy publication, read by key western opinion and policy makers. Main contributors include Fareed Zakaria, probably the leading news show presenter on geopolitics on CNN. The piece starts off in a highly critical tone by stating, “NATO suffers from a severe design flaw: extending deep in the cauldron of eastern European geopolitics, it is too large, too poorly defined and too provocative for its own good.” Not even several weeks after the article was published, Russian President Putin moved his military into Ukraine leading to the worst war in Europe since 1945. Russia was fed up with NATO being unwilling to implement a peace agreement its key members had signed that was to protect Russian speakers from being bombarded by Ukrainian nationalistic forces. Now he talks of using nuclear weapons which could lead to a global nightmare for India, as well.
The alliance is also becoming increasingly much less unilaterally operative, yet being more dangerous. This is especially so for the many non-NATO countries, like India and the overall BRICS, recently declared with more GNP than the G7 leading group of mostly NATO member nations. Non-G7 countries are becoming not only more important but see the western military alliance as obstructionist to a fairer and more peaceful, multilateral world order. Thus, India, leading this drive for a better world of peace and inclusiveness, be it through the G20, BRICS, the UN and beyond should be open to such policies: Those are of never considering joining NATO, not supporting its expansion, and asking the West what its real purpose is now in an era that should not be of war and war mongering. The latter are important and wise sentiments provided by Prime Minister Nararendra Modi to President Putin.
As well, why are its members loading up war zones, like Ukraine with too many horrible weapons and bombing countries unnecessarily or excessively? The litany is long from Afghanistan to Libya to Serbia to Syria and in Iraq regarding key NATO members, UK and the USA. It also includes tearing up anti-war initiatives like the Minsk accords to guarantee peace in Ukraine–in a duplicitous manner, may I add. Then there are the machinations of ruining legitimately elected governments or trying to which Ukraine was one? And some argue, friends of NATO have India in its sights with the coming elections. US led NATO has a lot to account for-but, to whom? The western voters’ voices against war and interventionism do not seem to count, but some NATO lobbies do.
Now for some useful but older history to add to context. Not too long after World War II ended in 1945, liberated Western Europe needed some safeguards. These were mostly against the rise of the Soviet Union, the strong Communist influences and the need to provide an alliance to support democratic forces. Given Europe’s weakness after such a debilitating war, the US led NATO was made to order. The much more well-off US also helped with needed reconstruction. Bravo NATO, so far?
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO became largely irrelevant. After all, the Russian economy was in a putrid state, was reorienting to capitalism and pro-West sentiment was on the rise. Furthermore, the large counter alliance to NATO, the Warsaw Pact, of Eastern Europe, once led by Moscow was dead. And President George Bush Sr, smartly committed at least not to expanding this so-called Atlantic alliance, eastward. (That is excluding East Germany united with West Germany.)
But NATO then squandered the benefits from the death of Soviet communism. Western advisors supported by some NATO members tried to help restructure what was left of the fragmented Soviet Union. The advice and restructuring were ill-thought out and financial support, miserly. John Kenneth Galbraith, top Harvard economist in a Youtube interview mentioned the latter. Russia essentially collapsed and many Russians have never forgiven the West for exacerbating such. And Russia further feeling humiliated turned to the hard-nosed, disciplinarian Putin who kept on successfully rebuilding the Russian economy. And with this, to evermore stand up to NATO and US triumphalism. But NATO instead of minimising its role when it should, expanded it and provoked Russia increasingly to take on more opposing views to what it saw as NATO becoming a key pillar in US led unilateralism and trampling on Moscow’s interests. This reinforced Moscow’s alignment more to China, driving it into the hands of Beijing. (This was also a bad outcome with New Delhi’s border disputes with China?) So, it is clear, the reality for more than 75 years, post World II is highly different, but NATO has not properly adjusted. Even adding salt to Russian wounds, NATO showed massive insensitivity to the attacks upon groups in Ukraine of Russian speaking minorities.
In the final analysis, Europe must get its act together and put together a more modern security architecture fit for the 21st century not for 1950s to 1980s, as the Foreign Affairs article implies. This is not radical but sensible despite how Washington war hawks and Russophobes see it as. Europe, now is not a defeated crushed economy as after World War II, but having a GNP larger than America’s. It must have less US led NATO and afford more Europe led security.
NATO is largely too out of control with its self-serving, bloated bureaucracy that thrives from keeping and generating war, supporting think tanks and media to buy into this and hoping this “gravy train of despair” supported by it, will also put fear into allies and others to follow its US leader. Simply speaking, the world has outlived the NATO military offensive alliance and may not continue to live with it.
Peter Dash, an educator is a former professor and past Associate of Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs, Cambridge, USA.
