Why NATO still has a purpose


Rachael Feldhausen
American Foreign Policy
Professor Shirk
3/13/18
1) What is NATO's purpose in the 21st century?
            NATO was originally designed to combat the power of the Soviet Union, communism, authoritarianism and fascism. However, in the 21st century these elements are no longer a pressing threat to Europe. The Soviet Union has collapsed, and most European countries have an established democracy of some form or another. These factors call into question the importance of NATO in today’s society. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia is still a global power that poses a great threat to many smaller countries in Europe. An example of this is Russia’s recent attempts at regaining control of the Ukraine. While the Ukraine is not currently a part of NATO, it is a country that was under the control of the Soviet Union. Russia’a actions in Ukraine proves that they are attempting to expand their power and are still a threat to many countries. Therefore, NATO is still important to fulfill its original objective of protecting smaller European countries from the might of Russia. 
In addition, some of the goals of NATO have shifted away from protecting European countries from internal threats to protecting European countries from external threats such as the expansion of radicalism and terrorism in the Middle East. Article V of NATO was used after 9/11 to justify NATO sending troops into Afghanistan as a peacekeeping/defense mission.  NATO is viewed as one of the best ways to negotiate peace between Middle Eastern countries and the West and have succeeded where other international organizations have failed.
NATO also ensures that any country under the NATO alliance will not be attacked for if it were to be attacked then the other countries would have to step in to defend that country. This is a great security for smaller countries, but also ensures alliances and support if a country is under siege. This also ensures that countries in NATO will not attack one another and cooperate with one another peacefully instead of through warfare. Furthermore, each country under NATO must uphold a certain standard of defense. This ensures that the countries allied under NATO are not exceedingly weak and all have at least some form of military power with which to defend themselves.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea To: President Donald Trump CC: Professor Shirk From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma Issue: If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea. Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons agai...
Read more