A NATO Forced To Change

Published in La Razón
(Spain) on 19 August 2021
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Mercedes Vetere. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
Washington's interests cannot stand above those of its allies.

Washington’s decision to invoke Article 5 after 9/11, the NATO treaty provision stipulating that any attack against one of the allies shall be considered an attack against all members, was not without criticism. Some European politicians warned that invoking the provision was a leap into a legal and geostrategic vacuum with unforeseeable consequences. They said there was a legal void because the article applied to Europe and North America; and that invoking Article 5 on this region would have geostrategic consequences, considering that only the U.S. Armed Forces could sustain such costly and complex military operations away from their territorial space, making the rest of the members extremely dependent on the United States.

Twenty years later, the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has not only shocked NATO, but has also shown that Washington's internal policies prevail over any other considerations. The Afghan fiasco on the heels of the terrible wars in Iraq and Syria, which have turned into the massacre of civilians, makes us wonder about the future of an organization born out of the Cold War and the threat of a Soviet Union in a polarized world that no longer exists. Any answer to this question necessarily involves the willingness of a new global actor, the European Union, merely an illusion after World War II, to accept its responsibilities as an economic and political power above national interests. On too many occasions, however, these interests have dragged the other members into questionable commitments, such as the recent events in Libya. NATO, as such, must define its role in this new global order, where strategic and economic weight has shifted toward the Pacific, with China as the main potential enemy. In addition, NATO must not disregard the ambition of Vladimir Putin's Russia to recover the territories lost after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

But above all, it is up to the European allies to decide whether they want to continue acting as a military appendage of Washington, which foots most of the bill, or whether they want to pursue an independent, community defense policy that is worthy of the name. Because no one can guarantee that they will not take us to other Afghanistans.


Una OTAN tocada y obligada a renovarse
Los intereses de Washington no pueden estar por encima de sus aliados
Cuando Washington, tras los atentados terroristas del 11-S de 2001 reclamó la activación del artículo 5 del Tratado del Atlántico Norte, que estipula que cualquier ataque contra uno de los aliados se considerará un ataque contra todos los aliados, algunos representantes políticos europeos advirtieron de que la propuesta suponía un salto al vacío jurídico y geoestratégico de imprevisibles consecuencias. Jurídico, porque el propio artículo invocado señalaba que su ámbito de aplicación eran Europa o América del Norte; geoestratégico, porque sólo las Fuerzas Armadas de los Estados Unidos eran capaces de mantener complejas y costosas operaciones militares en escenarios alejados de su espacio territorial, lo que hacía al resto de los aliados excesivamente dependientes del liderazgo norteamericano. Veinte años después, la abrupta retirada de Afganistán decidida por la Casa Blanca no sólo ha dejado a la OTAN en shock, sino que ha demostrado que la política interna de Washington prevalece sobre cualquier otra consideración. El fiasco afgano, tras las terribles guerras en Irak y Siria, a la postre traducidas en una matanza de civiles a gran escala, nos llevan a preguntarnos por el futuro de una organización que nació hija de la Guerra Fría y de la amenaza de una Unión Soviética que ya no existe como tal, en un mundo bipolar. Cualquier respuesta a esa pregunta pasa, necesariamente, por la voluntad de un nuevo actor mundial, la Unión Europea, que sólo era una quimera tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, de aceptar sus responsabilidades como potencia económica y política, por encima de unos intereses nacionales que en demasiadas ocasiones, la última, en Libia, han arrastrado al resto de los socios a compromisos de dudosa virtud. La OTAN, como tal, debe definir su papel en este nuevo orden mundial, donde el peso estratégico y económico se ha vencido hacia el Pacífico, con China como principal enemigo en potencia, pero sin desdeñar la ambición de la Rusia de Vladimir Putin de recuperar los territorios perdidos tras la disolución de la antigua URSS. Pero, sobre todo, es a los aliados europeos a quienes corresponde decir si quieren seguir actuando como un apéndice militar de Washington, que es quien, por otra parte, paga la mayor factura, o se vuelca en una política de defensa comunitaria, independiente y digna de ese nombre. Porque nadie puede garantizar que no nos llevarán a otros afganistanes.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: US Election Results Send 1 Clear Message to Israeli Politics

Japan: US Republican Party Defeat: A Heavy Anti-Trump Judgment

Uganda: Trump, Netanyahu, Political Troubles and Why Uganda Should Be Watching Closely

Mexico: United States: The Offended Party’s Turn

Topics

Mexico: United States: The Offended Party’s Turn

Japan: US Republican Party Defeat: A Heavy Anti-Trump Judgment

China: Four ‘Surprises’ in the US Midterm Elections

Egypt: Trump Is Drowning in the Blue Flood

India: Beyond the Blue Wave: American Voters Deliver the Reset the World Was Waiting for

Israel: US Election Results Send 1 Clear Message to Israeli Politics

Saudi Arabia: US Voters Care about the Rent, Not the War

Kenya: Lessons from US Midterm Elections: What Young Africans Can Learn

Related Articles

Japan: US Military Must Not Be Allowed To Hide Source of PFAS Contamination

Canada: Fixing the Wreckage Donald Trump Has Made of the World

Canada: Democrats Never Defended Canada from Trump’s Threats

Canada: Don’t Expect the Democrats To Save Us

Poland: Michał Szułdrzyński: The Trump Paradox. His Actions Could Save NATO*