Checkpoint: NATO Must Redefine Its Role In The Coming Century

Jeff Overs

The history of the world is the history of changing alliances. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one such alliance that dominates American foreign political discourse. The military organization is designed to fight war in defense of peace between states, contrasting United Nations goals of avoiding war in service of peace. NATO exists as a relic of the post-World War II era, though its functions have expanded with time, and its sphere of influence has expanded beyond the North Atlantic. Member states, however, have shown a willingness to undermine allied nations in support of goals that range even further from the North Atlantic and priorities which are not shared unanimously between members. Analysis and redefinition of NATO’s role on the world stage is necessary to ensure that cooperation between states and their ambitions does not, in effect, undermine broader goals of international peace and stimulate a greater state of war between nations.

Expanding Alliances

NATO was formed in the aftermath of World War II in response to mutual anxieties that Germany or the Soviet Union may encroach beyond their territories. Finding its origins in the Treaty of Dunkirk between France and England, the alliance was expanded to include Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This formed the Western Union, which soon allied itself with the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland in 1949- thus forming the North Atlantic Treaty. The collapse of the Soviet Union marked an absence of NATO’s main driving force and opposition, and the organization later expanded to include numerous Central and Eastern European nations and Balkan states. Some nations have no intention of joining NATO, but contribute to its efforts through the Individual Partnership Action Plan, Partnership for Peace program, Mediterranean Dialogue, or Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. 

Article 5

Article 5 of the NATO charter affirms agreement between member states “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” It is the preeminent clause of the charter and binding force between member states. Since the 1949 establishment of the alliance, the aftermath of the September 11 attack stands as the first and singular invocation of Article 5. The military allegiances solidified by the NATO charter, however, are without teeth. Russia is an example of NATO’s inability to stand firm in its promises. The Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 prompted sanctions on Russian officials in the form of visa restrictions and asset freezes and the continuation of Ukraine’s halted aspiring membership within NATO. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted during the 2021 Brussels Summit that Ukraine’s Membership Action Plan would continue despite Russian objections. 

In response to growing NATO alliances, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that such an expansion into Ukraine would cross one of the leader’s noted “red lines”- the breach of which he claims would prompt an “asymmetrical, rapid and harsh” response. Belarus additionally confirmed partnership with Russia to halt NATO growth. As it stands now, European allies are unable to sustain a defense against any rapid Russian or Chinese invasion of Europe. A June report from the Center for American Progress states, “the level of Europe’s defense spending and the size of its collective forces in uniform should make it a global power with one of the strongest militaries in the world… European forces aren’t ready to fight with the equipment they have, and the equipment they have isn’t good enough.” A North Atlantic alliance centered on “collective defense” is futile if the majority of allied powers cannot defend their own borders, or others’, from invasion. 

Undermining Allies

The United States recently solidified a trilateral security arrangement with the United Kingdom to provide Australia, a global partner of NATO, use of nuclear submarine technology. Pledging that Australia will not utilize the arrangement to develop a nuclear arsenal, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton insisted on intentions to “provide opportunities for us to train our sailors, provide the skills and knowledge in terms of how we operate.” The partnership effectively severed France from its own $66 billion negotiations to construct conventional non-nuclear submarines for Australia. In response, France recalled its ambassadors from the US and Australia and additionally canceled a defense minister’s summit with the United Kingdom. In a joint statement, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drain and Defense Minister Florence Parley expressed that, “the American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in terms of our values or in terms of respect for multilateralism based on the rule of law, shows a lack of coherence that France can only note and regret.”

The trilateral partnership also shows a willingness in NATO allies to circumvent allies in achieving their goals. President Trump frequently reproached NATO allies for the perceived limited scope of their apportionment to defense funding, and the Center for American Progress report states of Europe, “Its fighter jets and helicopters aren’t ready to fly; its ships and submarines aren’t ready to sail; and its vehicles and tanks aren’t ready to roll. Europe lacks the critical capabilities for modern warfare.” Despite this, the NATO members chose to undermine means for an affected state to increase the scale of armament production. The strength and trust of an alliance are null if member allies are willing to conduct months of secretive negotiation against the interest of others to achieve goals which those members vehemently oppose.

Conflicting Priorities

NATO faces a series of competing priorities between its member states. Stoltenberg reaffirmed President Biden of NATO’s commitment against growing Chinese influence, despite opposing views that NATO should curb its influence to the North Atlantic region. In contrast, allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics maintain that NATO’s attention should remain concentrated on Russian encroachment, their historic adversary and closest land threat. Several European governments seek to maintain a balance and avoid choosing sides in competition between the US and China, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that “the United States won’t force allies into an ‘us-or-them’ choice with China.” However, with Stoltenberg confirming NATO’s commitment against Chinese expansion, it leaves European states in a tenuous balance. Further, resources expended by the US in efforts against China leave Eastern European and Baltic allies at risk for encroachment from Russia. 

Refusing Denuclearization

In September 2017, the United Nations adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” Article 1 of the treaty prohibits nations "under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Signed by one hundred and twenty-two nations, it was reported that, “none of the nine countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons- the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel- is supporting the treaty.” North Korea was the only nuclear state to support negotiations during the first committee.

The United States and Russia possess over ninety percent of the estimated more than thirteen thousand nuclear warheads that exist on Earth. NATO claims that it is “committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes”; however, the resistance to denuclearization contradicts that end. While the Cold War race to monopolize nuclear weapons resulted in enormous stockpiles, research from Michigan Technological University determined that more than 100 nuclear strikes would induce significant environmental effects causing drastic harm to our species internationally. “With 100 nuclear weapons, you still get nuclear deterrence, but avoid the probable blowback from nuclear autumn that kills your own people.” China’s stockpile includes slightly over three hundred nuclear weapons- the United States and Russia’s combined eleven thousand is comical. NATO’s resistance to denuclearization perpetuates a status quo of wasteful spending where funds could be used to shore up lacking conventional defense capabilities for allies.

Conclusion

Biden’s commitment to NATO raises significant questions of the organization’s role throughout the next century. The treaty was formed in 1949 with twelve founding members but has since increased to include thirty, with over thirty other nations participating in non-member capacities. Ukraine’s aspiring membership in NATO raises questions of defense against Russia, while the Secretary General reaffirms priority to stymieing China’s growth elsewhere. Putin’s “red line” begs the question of European preparedness to act in the event of Article 5 invocation. Eastern European and Baltic allies admittedly depend on support from the United States, meanwhile other members oppose NATO’s expansion beyond the transatlantic sphere. Further, NATO’s opposition to widely popular nuclear disarmament implies the view that military capability exempts nations from international accountability. These contradictions must be addressed if NATO is to contribute a net positive to the international community in the coming century.