One of the biggest challenges being faced by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on its 75th anniversary pertains to combating and addressing the severe criticism from some European countries and the spread of right-wing nationalist movements. Hence, it needs to adopt a cautious and balanced approach to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Why did India reject the US offer to be part of NATO? From the Indian perspective, experts say that India has already rejected the US offer to be part of an alliance to safeguard against Chinese aggression. India is capable of independently countering such threats and, therefore, does not need the assistance of a military grouping like NATO. If India joins NATO, it will pave the way for the US to establish military bases, which is unacceptable to Delhi.
US allies like Australia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea have permitted military bases, but India cannot allow the infringement of its sovereignty and degradation of its positioning in the world arena. While maintaining strategic autonomy, India will never jeopardize its age-old trustworthy ties with Russia, which is at odds with America and its allies after the Ukraine conflict. A United States Congressional committee had recommended that the US should strengthen NATO Plus to safeguard borders from China and enhance its capabilities to counter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region hence it warrants India’s inclusion in the organization
Challenges ahead:
NATO, with 32 member states and five aligned nations including Japan, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, and South Korea, must enhance defence capabilities and security arrangements to ensure mutual trust and better cooperation. NATO, also called Washington Treaty, was created on April 4, 1949 to counterweight to Soviet military forces stationed in Central and Eastern Europe after world war 2nd, has traversed a hazardous journey and sustained faith of security and protection from aggressors. It hinges on its commitment to stay united and germane. Secondly, NATO’s military potential is being perceived as a tool and weapon of the United States to ensure its hegemony over nations that do not pose military threats. There is a calamitous need to dispel such impressions of supremacy, evident from its 200 military interventions worldwide in 75 years, including 20 major ones like the questionable outcome of combating terrorism in Afghanistan, unlawful interference in Syria, invasion of Iraq, bombing of Yugoslavia, destabilization of Libya, and the creation of ISIS. Thirdly, as a parting gift, NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg has proposed a $100 billion package of military aid to Ukraine for five years, aimed at avoiding a potential halt in aid if Trump wins the 2024 American presidential elections. Former President Trump has made it clear to keep his country away from such conflicts, and he is seen as pro-Putin, which might upset NATO. Experts feel that NATO members should get this proposal approved at the upcoming meeting in Washington and counter Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
NATO Needs Reforms:
Foreign policy experts argue that NATO needs to focus on non-traditional threats such as terror attacks, disinformation campaigns, cyber assaults, and risks to disrupt supply chains to preserve its allies. Otherwise, it will lose its credentials and effectiveness. Secondly, NATO must adopt a comprehensive strategy that will be productive and fruitful only if it integrates itself with international organizations besides strengthening its military capabilities.
Thirdly, it should put in place an effective mechanism to foster a shared sense of purpose and make relentless efforts to ensure cohesiveness and unity among the member states. Consensus-building should be the primary motto of the alliance, guided by essential elements like discussion, dialogue, unified planning, and political alignments. Fourthly, transparency is obligatory to create mutual trust and internal synergy, as well as to improve coordination among the five main policy formation committees, including the executive working group, political committee, policy formalization group, military group, and senior resource board.
The successes and failures of the organization go hand in hand, but conflicts are spreading among major powers, and frozen encounters may always heat up in the future, attributed to growing state brittleness and spill-over threats, thereby disturbing the world order. The recent Global Risk Report has come out with curious findings pertaining to the Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS) which is the culmination of the analysis of fifteen hundred global experts who have investigated into the global risks through three time frames to support decision-makers responsible for balancing current crises and long-term policies and priorities.
One major failure of NATO relates to the lack of allocation of 2% of funds by defence ministers of state members of their GDP agreed upon in 2006 towards security-related expenditures, especially when the United States accounts for two-thirds of the alliance’s spending, which needs to be shared by other nations in the organization. NATO had focused on restricting communism, discouraging militant nationalism, and controlling the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but now the situation has become volatile in post-Cold War era as Russia has indulged in annexing neighbours, posing a threat to other smaller nations as well.
Analysts feel that as NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary in 2024, it stands at a vintage point of passing through a litmus test of its core mission of safeguarding the security and freedom of its members, based on a principle-oriented international order and mandate. Trump’s potential return to the White House may jeopardize the existence of NATO as it may encourage aggressors like Putin and give a boost to China’s over-ambitious expansion policy to annex Taiwan in future. Trump may encourage Putin to continue his onslaught on Ukraine, putting Europe’s security at risk.
(The writer has got a six-year experience of foreign posting in a neighbouring country and a political analyst based in Shimla).”