 "Photo: MCT")
Last weekend, the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO) gathered to commemorate the 60th anniversary of a storied alliance. In light of recent events, however, there was little to celebrate. All across the globe, the organization is being tested, and the organization appears to be deteriorating from the inside. For an alliance that played such a crucial role throughout the Cold War, it appears to be heading down the path toward oblivion.
As the members of NATO met in Strasbourg, France, the central issue of discussion and debate was clearly Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has defined his foreign policy agenda around completing both America and NATO’s mission of a safe and democratic Afghanistan. The U.S. commander in chief has attempted to lead with action of his own. Recently, he announced his plan to increase American forces from 38,000 to 68,000 in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the response he received from fellow member states was more along the lines of moral support than actual support.
President Obama articulated the need for “more resources and a sustained effort to achieve our ultimate goals.” Despite his great skill as an orator, the 44th President’s pleas have fallen on deaf ears. European allies consented to supplying an additional 5,000 troops to the region. However, 3,000 of them will only provide temporary service until Afghanistatn’s August elections. The other 2,000 troops would not see action but rather would train the Afghani army and police. As of next year, American military forces are expected to take command over military involvement in southern Afghanistan, one of the most violent areas in all of the country. In addition, America is expected to retain its control over eastern Afghanistan, which is also known for its unrelenting violence. While America will be directing all of its efforts to the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan, European members of NATO will be situated in the peaceful areas of northern and western Afghanistan.
There appears to be a general disconnect between what European members stated at the NATO summit and what they were actually willing to do. All of the 28 countries in the alliance appear to understand the significance of Afghanistan with regard to global security. “We want Afghanistan to be able to defend itself and ensure that no threat of terrorism emanates from its territory,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared. Her recent ally, President Nicolas Sarkozy added, “We trust [President Obama]. We’ve heard the words he spoke on behalf of the world’s number one democracy — we've been waiting for these words for a long time.” Yet it is these same countries that refuse to provide the necessary long-term resources that Obama requests.
The recent discourse with regard to Afghanistan has highlighted the fact that NATO is splintering. The mission statement of the organization specifies that the alliance bears the responsibility of protecting the “common values of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes.” After analyzing NATO’s past actions and future plans in Afghanistan, it appears that only the United States is living up to the lofty expectations established by the organization. European members are pledging their moral support; however, the future of NATO will depend on the alliance backing up their word with strength. If the majority of members continue to project an image of weakness, the alliance will falter.
In addition to the pressure of internal fragmentation, the power of NATO is being challenged in all areas of the globe. When the Cold War concluded in 1991, NATO was the strongest alliance in the international arena. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had been dissolved, and NATO had been left unchallenged. Unfortunately, a lot has changed in two decades. The most significant of these changes pertains to the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Most Americans (and even Tufts students) have not the faintest clue as to what exactly is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. However, the SCO does and will continue to play a considerable role in 21st-century politics. Established in 2001, the organization seeks to unite Central Asian countries into collective action on security, economics and even culture issues. There are six countries that are members, including the People’s Republic of China and Russia. In addition, there are four countries that are observers: Mongolia, India, Iran and Pakistan. Finally, there are three guest members, including Afghanistan. While NATO membership is noticeably larger, the SCO contains some very powerful members.
The SCO presents NATO with a problem as it continues to grow in power and proceeds to incorporate countries that hold great hostility toward Western powers. Since its conception, the countries involved within the SCO have rapidly increased in power. China has seen all aspects of its power grow exponentially in the last decade. The Chinese economy has risen to the world’s third largest. In addition, China continues to invest unprecedented amounts in its military. Per a report released a few weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Defense now states that the military balance of power between the United States and China tips toward China. While Russia may not match the economic or military power of China, the Russians hold a plethora of lethal weapons, including an immense amount of nuclear arms. Although only an observer, India has a rapidly growing economy and one of the world’s largest militaries, fully equipped with nuclear weapons. With regard to other key countries, Pakistan holds nuclear capabilities, and Iran aspires to obtain them.
While a concern arises over the recent massive growth in members and observers of the SCO, the concern for NATO arises over the motives of these countries. None of the powerful countries in this organization, with the exception of India and Russia, are democracies. History has clearly demonstrated that authoritarian governments are more prone to war than democracies. In addition, the leaders of these countries are either anti-Western or have worked alongside anti-Western leaders in the past. Iran presents the quintessential case for the argument. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has long been an enemy of the United States and NATO. However, he is an observer in the SCO and has signed treaties and agreements with China and Russia. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has also agreed to deals and pacts with China and Russia. Following the old adage, NATO has been forced to judge the SCO “by the company that they have kept.”
While the SCO’s aggressive intentions can be debated, the fact that it provides bipolarity to Eurasia goes without question. NATO no longer maintains itself as the sole powerful global alliance and must learn to interact with another powerful entity. Recently, the strength of NATO has declined because the members of the alliance continue to appear divided and weak in the eyes of the world. If this trend continues, NATO will no longer become effective in promoting its noblest of intentions globally and might have submit to another alliance such as the SCO.
--
Michael Bendetson is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
