Resurrect, Don’t Reject: The New Battlefront for NATO
Some argue that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, needs to be disbanded: I say no, it needs to be rebranded: its mandate expanded to meet the new geopolitical realities the world now faces. In the aftermath of the monumental devastation of World War Two, NATO was founded with the lofty vision of ensuring peace in Europe, promoting cooperation among various states, and countering the perceived threat from Soviet Russia. Today, as the geopolitical sands shift dramatically, the echoes of these historical missions still hold relevance, albeit in a much-expanded format.
Critics suggest that NATO’s significance is dwindling and that its obsolescence renders it ripe for disbandment. I agree to some degree: NATO, in its current iteration, is obsolete! The geopolitical landscape is much different now and requires a more nuanced and agile construct to deal with the current realities.
The rise of China as a reemerging world power, the full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine and the deepening ties between Russia and China specifically and other Indo-Pacific nations in general present a risk that must be mitigated. Furthermore, Russia and China are courting Africa with direct foreign investment and other carrots on a string to entice an alignment with APAC rather than Western nations. Africa is geopolitically of great strategic importance: one need only look at the world map to understand the tactical advantage it offers to allies with regard to military installations, Specifically Naval. Because of the increased risk inherent in our epoch, I suggest a transformation rather than a termination of NATO within these shifting and fluid geopolitical sands. In a world grappling with new forms of conflict and unprecedented challenges, we need not discard this long-standing institution but re-imagine and reorient its potential by expanding its mandate to meet the threats inherent in the contemporary world.
So, while I may agree to a certain point that NATO is obsolete, it is not obsolete because the threat is not there anymore but because the threat is greatly expanded from NATO’s inception and now includes the APAC region: Therefore, I urge critics to reconsider their argument in light of the evidence or to redress the shortcomings in their argument accordingly.
I realise that fear may have a lot to do with critics of NATO wanting to bring about its demise; I can, however, state that sticking our heads in the sand and disregarding the reality of the current geopolitical climate will not cause the threats to disappear: quite frankly, I consider that behaviour to be ‘magical thinking.’
The world is awash with opportunist ‘Strongmen,’ authoritarian leaders who think they can take what they want without repercussion. Examine Russia’s behaviour in the current Russo-Ukrainian war, myriad war crimes, and Vladimir Putin being indicted as a war criminal. Examine the Chinese subjugation and genocide of the Uyghur Muslim population… Now–think of the ideological congruency between two clearly authoritarian leaders and the shared zeitgeist that may manifest from their ideological marriage. In my opinion, that is a risk too great for apathy: it is a risk too great to have no balance in place with the preponderance of behavioural evidence at hand. Therefore, I advocate for a rebranding and repurposing of NATO so that it is up to scratch and able to deal with the task at hand. Remember this: the thing you fear is the shadow of uncertainty, the unpredictable trajectory of a world in flux: and often, in the act of mitigating that fear, you hasten your own demise. Disband NATO at your risk but remember, Here be dragons: ‘Paranoia will destroy ya’.
