A NATO Forced To Change

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.