NATO Tries to Justify Its Existence In A 21st Century World

Once every 10 years, NATO comes out with a new “strategic concept,” in the same way a child outgrows a pair of pants. NATO is a military coalition designed to deter a preemptive Soviet attack on Europe during the Cold War. After the collapse of the USSR, NATO did not disband or downsize. Instead, they received former Warsaw members such as Poland, Romania, Georgia, and Bulgaria. Why has NATO grown in size now that its enemy no longer exists? Now that it has no reason to exist, why is it still here?

Many politicians say NATO’s expansion is a way for the coalition to put more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others say It is a way to undermine Russia’s influence. Some say both. However, one of the main reasons NATO is still around is that it is firmly rooted in Europe’s economy, and uprooting it would cause large scale socioeconomic problems, such as massive unemployment. If your lawn was covered in weeds, and you all of a sudden got rid of all of them, most of your lawn would be exposed earth. In the same way Europe cannot disband NATO in a single decade. Even Russia would not request their immediate disbandment.

How has NATO justified its existence in the 21^st century world? The “strategic concept” is a document which contains the new political and military roles of the organization, its boundaries, methods and entirely new functions. According to Andrei Fedyashin, a political commentator for Novasti, NATO’s new objectives would be: “to improve the global non-proliferation regime, cut nuclear arsenals, fight terrorism, build a missile-defense shield in Europe, and combat maritime piracy and cyber-attacks. Other objectives include ensuring energy security, preventing global warming and protecting water sources and other natural resources.” These objectives hardly sound like objectives from a massive military coalition.

In my opinion, an obsolete military coalition which continues to build upon itself is only delaying its inevitable disintegration. Surely NATO should be downsizing itself and not spreading its roots beyond its original borders to feed on fresh economies. Europe should instead be gradually weeding NATO out of its lawn. If the weeds in the lawn continue to grow to encompass most of the lawn and they suddenly die, so too will the lawn. If NATO has to justify its existence by creating objectives which would be more appropriately handled by national governments, or the UN, the world must ask itself whether or not it needs NATO.