75 Years of NATO

For Antena M by: Miljan Vešović

NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary on Thursday, April 4th, 2024. On that day, in 1949, the North-Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, DC, by the original NATO allies. As they joined, the newer member states signed and ratified the Treaty.

As defined by the North Atlantic Treaty, the fundamental goal of NATO is to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their (parties to the Treaty) peoples, founded on the principle of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”. They (the parties) seek to promote stability and well-being in the North-Atlantic area”. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security”.

NATO allies have, for the last 75 years, lived in peace, have experienced no wars of aggression or invasion of their territories and have activated the Article 5 of the Treaty, envisaging a military response against the aggression on one of the allies, only once – upon request of the U.S, after the 9/11.

Therefore, it is clear that NATO has, so far, achieved its main, fundamental mission. In recent history, it has endured deep divisions among the allies about the Iraq War and withering criticism from both the left and the right. Two most famous examples: the sitting French President called the Alliance “brain dead” and the former U.S. President called it “obsolete”. However, NATO is still here and most of the allies agree that it is stronger and more relevant than ever.

The current increased relevance of NATO is, of course, directly derived from the recent deterioration of European and global security. The challenges have been mentioned so many times – Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its broader revisionism and intent to destroy the current world order; the rise of China and its potential to replace Soviet Union as the world’s authoritarian superpower, the never-ending crisis in the Middle East; the global terrorist and transnational organized crime networks, the increase of threats in cyberspace and to critical infrastructure – to name a few.

Much has also been said about the challenges NATO faces from within – the significant strengthening of populist right and left-wing political forces in U.S, Canada and Europe. These leaders do not view NATO as essential for European and global security, and have other ideas how to achieve it. Especially when it comes to Russia – the belief of populist politicians (with notable exceptions like Giorgia Meloni, Boris Johnson or Pierre Poilievre) is that the security will best be achieved by appeasing Putin and making concessions to him in Ukraine and elsewhere.

It is also important to mention the reluctance of European allies to spend money on defense and improve capabilities of their armed forces. Only in last couple of years, after sometimes crude, but ultimately efficient, pressure campaign from former U.S. President Trump (while he was in office) and after Russia had invaded Ukraine, have the European allies turned the tide and started spending meaningfully on defense.

However, not enough has been said about another threat to the Alliance (and indeed, to democracies across the world) from authoritarian powers – the ideological threat. The very principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, upon which NATO was founded 75 years ago, are under attack by Russia, China, Iran and other authoritarian and extremist regimes. The purpose of this ideological attack is to convince people that policies based on these principles are not superior to policies of authoritarianism.

Far right and far left political forces within NATO allies are supported by Russia, China, Iran and other authoritarian states. Here it is important not to succumb to conspiratorial mindset – not every populist left or right politician is on Putin’s or Xi’s payroll. However, some of them are and most of them are unwittingly helping the revisionist powers achieve their goals.

The inclination to be isolationistic, reject multilateral cooperation, dismantling institutions to “fight deep state”, neglect threats to democracy and human rights and look up to totalitarian dictators like Kim Jong Un or wannabe dictators like Orban are hallmarks of the populist right wing. Tolerance of or outright support to terrorist organizations like Hamas, antisemitism, exacerbation of racial divisions by promoting ideas that Western countries, Western science, philosophy and political thought are “systemically racist” and indiscriminate rejection and criticism of all military engagements (thus rendering the deterrence impossible) are hallmarks of today’s populist left.

These ideas damage the moral compass of NATO and its member states. The Alliance has the unmatched military might and, collectively, the best economy to underpin any future war effort. At the upcoming summit in Washington DC the Alliance will undoubtedly tout its military readiness, its unity, its efforts to project deterrence, defense and stability, its ever-increasing ability to respond to cyber and hybrid threats and information warfare and the billions it (or its allies) will send to help the war effort in Ukraine.  However, without moral certainty that the values you are fighting for are superior, it is impossible for NATO to continue fulfilling its goal.

Russia, China and Iran know this. This is why they, together with supporting the populists in the West, are also making the case themselves that Western values are either false, or inferior to theirs. For them, authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy, which is a recipe for anarchy, it is impossible to achieve law and order without a "firm hand", human rights are not universal and, in foreign policy, everything, even most brutal wars of aggression, are OK things to do because "other great powers do it anyway". The market should never be free - corporations and entrepreneurs can exist only if they follow the instruction of the regime what to build or where to invest. Otherwise, the CEOs "accidentally" fall through windows of high-rise buildings. 

They use whataboutery and false moral equivalence to justify these positions. For them, toppling a genocidal dictator like Saddam Husein and toppling democratically-elected leader like Volodimir Zelenskiy is one and the same. Intervening in other countries to protect from genocide/war crimes and intervening to commit genocide/war crimes - the same. Promoting democracy and promoting Putinism - the same. Human rights are universal, but they have an "alternative concept" - one that envisages rigged elections, curtailing of freedom of speech, movement and religion, arbitrary detentions and incarcerations and unwarranted mass surveillance of citizenry. 

The current Israel - Hamas war is a good example how the authoritarian states are waging ideological warfare. Their current main goal is to push through the UN and other relevant international organizations that Israel is committing genocide. While the evidence that Israel has, on occasions, used excessive force in Gaza or hasn't done enough to protect civilians from harm is growing stronger by the day, arguing that a legitimate military action that Israel carried out after a devastating terrorist attack on its soil is an act of genocide is an intentional gross exaggeration. 

Putin, Xi and Khamenei do not care about Palestinian civilians more than they care about the ones from Finland or Seychelles. However, their goal is to legitimize the notions that democracies commit genocides. If democracies commit genocides, they are not morally superior to autocracies, and the foreign policy based on values is not superior to "might makes right" concepts. 

The accusations leveled against Israel today are the same ones NATO and its allies faced during its interventions in former Yugoslavia, or, indeed, during Ukraine war (when Jews like Zelenskiy mysteriously became Nazis and every country supporting Ukraine a supporter of Nazism). The Alliance and its member states will face these accusations in the future as well, literally whenever they decide to intervene or help somewhere. The only way for NATO, and indeed every democracy, to win an ideological war is to have an unshakeable belief in what NATO represents and does, and also the belief that the values upon the Alliance which was founded are superior to all other concepts.  

Moreover, NATO and its member states should not be shy to claim this moral superiority publicly - after all, it is the truth. And in the informational environment of today, when mankind is exposed to the biggest information overload ever seen in history, it is essential to constantly remind the people of that truth. And no amount of "deep state" conspiracies or whataboutery about someone's colonial or slave-owning past two hundred years ago will change that truth. 

However, if the truth becomes obscured by the flurry of "alternative facts", NATO will, indeed, become "brain dead" and a "paper tiger". Preventing this worst-case scenario will be the biggest challenge for the Alliance in years to come - bigger than any negative security development in Europe or beyond, any election result or any budget dispute. The future effectiveness of the Alliance, and therefore, the peace and security of the Trans - Atlantic community depend on how well NATO will respond to the challenge.