What does US President Donald Trump think about NATO? Twice during his election campaign he rubbished it publically, saying it was obsolete. Yet this month, when he met UK Prime Minister Therese May, he told her he supported NATO 100 percent. <\/p>\n
A few influential people have argued that it is indeed obsolete. One of them was William Pfaff, the late, much-esteemed columnist for the International Herald Tribune. Another is Paul Hockenos, who set out his views in a seminal article in World Policy Journal. Their words fell on deaf ears. Former US President George H.W. Bush saw it differently, and wanted to see the Soviet Union more involved in NATOs day-to-day work. <\/p>\n
His successor Bill Clinton had another agenda, one that turned out to be dangerous, triggering Moscows current hostility toward the West: To expand NATO, incorporating one by one Russias former East European allies. His successors continued that approach, with Barack Obama raising a red rag to a bull by calling for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia. <\/p>\n
NATOs job, as British Secretary-General Lord Ismay said in 1967, was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. It certainly succeeded with the latter two. <\/p>\n
To some extent, it did find a role after the Berlin Wall came down. It led humanitarian interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. In 2003 it deployed troops into Afghanistan. At one time the NATO-led force rose to 40,000 for 40 countries, including all 27 NATO allies. <\/p>\n
Nevertheless, some of us do not see these as great successes. Most historians who have examined the evidence are convinced that the late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had no intention of invading Western Europe. World War II was won, the Soviet Union had a ring of friends around its borders, and Germany was divided. The allies had been an invaluable help, and the Soviets did not feel threatened by their former comrades in arms. <\/p>\n
So often overlooked is that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of defeating Germany, and lost by far the most fighting men and civilians. Thorough searches by Western historians through Soviet archives, opened under President Boris Yeltsin, have revealed that Moscow had no plans to invade Europe. <\/p>\n
Yes, it is. The EU should take over most of NATOs role: Doing more of what it has done in Georgia and stabilizing the Balkans, making use of its massive soft power, and thus undergirding world security. <\/p>\n
Jonathan Power <\/p>\n
Today, despite its deployments in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, NATO is not a truly multilateral institution of equals. The Europeans do not initiate military action (with the exception of Libya, which led to the overthrow and killing of President Muammar Qaddafi). It is the Americans who do that, and the Europeans follow, whatever their reservations. <\/p>\n
Moreover, obeying the US rather than following their own convictions in the former Yugoslavia, they did not seek UN Security Council permission, and then are angry that Russia followed suit with its grabbing of Crimea. <\/p>\n
NATO has no relevance to the problems that truly occupy Europe today. Its hands are tied in Ukraine; it has nothing to contribute to the massive refugee crisis; it cannot help deal with the fact, as an EU study concluded, that there will be an increase in tensions over declining water supplies in the Middle East that will affect Europes security and economic interests; nor can it do anything to contribute to the fight against global warming, in the long run the most severe threat that confronts humanity. <\/p>\n
Regarding the war on terrorism, there is little NATO can do as a combined action force. At home, each government deals with the issue itself. In the fight against Al-Qaeda and Daesh in Syria and Iraq, the Americans, Brits, French and Russians battle them in their own way. <\/p>\n
In Afghanistan, NATO troops are losing territory to the Taliban year by year, and the poppy crop provides ever-more heroin to subvert Europe and Asia. It is difficult to believe that otherwise sensible men and women in NATO countries believe they should have stayed on in Afghanistan after their original target Al-Qaeda, the source of the Sept. 11 attacks was driven out of Afghanistan and dealt a severe body blow. <\/p>\n
This was not in their UN mandate, and it has led to Americas longest war with no end in sight. It is a fruitless cause, and the defeat of the Taliban by these means should never have been attempted. NATO countries should have limited themselves to building schools, hospitals, clinics, water supplies, sanitation systems and roads. <\/p>\n
The EU should take over most of NATOs role: Doing more of what it has done in Georgia and stabilizing the Balkans, making use of its massive soft power, and thus undergirding world security. Yes, NATO is obsolete. <\/p>\n
Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer. He was a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune for 17 years. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More: <\/p>\n
Is NATO obsolete? - Arab News<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What does US President Donald Trump think about NATO? Continue reading