Why NATO, at the ripe age of 70, still matters – The Boston Globe

The Cold War is fast becoming a distant memory unless you happen to be in Ukraine, where its anything but and the 29-member alliance (soon to be 30 with the addition of North Macedonia) is fraying at the seams. Its recent London meeting looked less like the birthday bash it was billed as and more like a scene from Mean Girls. But petty squabbles can only embolden the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

Even as Trump boarded Air Force One in a huff, other members of the alliance were indeed working on what would become the London Declaration, which at least says all of the right things. Things like, Solidarity, unity, and cohesion are cornerstone principles of our Alliance. It also affirmed the principle enshrined in its founding document as Article V, that an attack against one Ally shall be considered an attack against us all.

The problem remains: Do members of the Alliance actually believe that? In his controversial interview with The Economist this fall, Macron who was still smarting from Turkeys incursion into Syria, with the tacit approval of the Trump administration, and its attack on the Kurds raised the hypothetical: Would NATO defend Turkey against an attack by Syria?

What will Article V mean tomorrow? Macron asked. If the Bashar al-Assad regime decides to retaliate against Turkey, will we commit ourselves under it? Its a crucial question.

Macron continues to promote the idea of a European Army, as if the European Union and its 28 member states (at least prior to the likely departure of Britain) dont have enough to squabble about already.

If the Atlantic alliance is to be something other than a debate club in the days ahead, it will need to confront both its evolving mission and whether it can carry on absent, at least for the time being, strong US leadership.

The London declaration is a hopeful sign that NATO is preparing itself to weather that storm:

Russias aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security; terrorism in all its forms and manifestations remains a persistent threat to us all. State and non-state actors challenge the rules-based international order. Instability beyond our borders is also contributing to irregular migration. We face cyber and hybrid threats.

Alliance members also put China on its list of concerns in its rather oblique way, noting that Chinas growing influence and international policies present both opportunities and challenges that we need to address together as an Alliance. There are some real fears about Chinese domination of the 5G world of communications and recognizing the need to rely on secure and resilient systems.

The real issue the elephant in the room is NATOs ability and continued commitment to do all this, even in the presence of a US leader who repeatedly fails to see the threat posed by Putin.

For now, NATO remains the best option for securing the future of democracy and security in Europe. No all-European Army will ever match the might and the expertise that the United States and Canada have to offer. Nor should there be any doubt of the broader US commitment to its future. NATO has weathered worse storms in its 70 years than the petulance of a US president. Its new mission statement gives every indication it will weather this one too.

View original post here:
Why NATO, at the ripe age of 70, still matters - The Boston Globe