What You Need to Know About NATO
We are 2 days away from a general election in the UK, which is pretty monumental, but did you know that NATO held a summit in London last week? More specifically, the 3rd and 4th of December?
For those who may not be aware, NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and essentially was created by European countries, the US and Canada as a sort of “collective defence military club” in 1949. The members are there to support one another in a militaristic way should any of them be in a position where they need help. NATO was seen as the best way to control and respond to Russian aggression — my bad, the threat of the USSR’s sphere of influence, rather — and the spread of communism. Their most notable operation was in 1999, during Kosovo’s independence war against Yugoslavia. NATO forces bombed the hell out of that place from March until July…and it was particularly frowned upon because NATO did not get the “go-ahead” they needed from the Security Council before launching airstrikes. Why? Office politics, that’s why. But that’s something we can discuss at another time.
It’s an interesting organisation: currently, it counts 29 member states, but a lot more partners than members (this includes Russia), and the decisions made by NATO must come from a consensus between all 29 members. And as a military alliance, each member must contribute the equivalent of 2% of their GDP towards the organisation — something which Trump has been quick to show that not all members respect that percentage. The US actually spends about 3.6% of its GDP for NATO, translating to a cool $6.85trillion. Mo’ money mo’ problems init.
So what exactly happened last week, for 48 hours? Well, it was off to a rocky start. Macron and Trump bumped heads about a comment Macron made where he sees NATO as braindead…something Mr. Trump took serious offence to, even though he’s never been NATO’s biggest fan. And there’s also the fact that Turkey’s President Erdogan made it crystal clear that he will not support a security operation in the Baltic if NATO doesn’t agree that the Kurds are terrorists and they need NATO’s help.
The Kurdish “issue”
What we’re most concerned about at dED_UCATION is this question regarding what to do with Turkey, the Kurds, and northern Syria. To make a long story short, the Kurdish militia group called the YPG has been an ally to Western forces in fighting off ISIS for years. But as Kurdish population exist outside of Turkey, (Northern Syria, for example) the fear is that at one point they’ll gain enough power to challenge existing governments and truly start a Kurdish state. Painting them in the light of “terrorists” practically gives carte blanche to do whatever you need to curtail that. After 9/11, the US called on NATO to intervene in the name of “collective defence”, so it’s easy to see why Erdogan would drop the T-word to justify his ways. It’s always baffling to see these powerful states (both militarily and politically) so quick to support an on-the-ground group, arm them to the teeth with the latest in military technology and help with intelligence, only for them to turn around and call these groups “terrorists” when the control they once had on the group no longer seems to exist. Erdogan believes the YPG is an extension of a Kurdish movement from the 70s and 80s that called for Kurdish independence. Besides, what’s the issue with the Kurdish population establishing their own state? Ah yes, the loss of territory that goes with it, of course. How could we not factor in these colonialist ideals and mindsets? Silly us.
Why is this an issue, in itself? Surely, if the other member states of NATO didn’t agree that the YPG represents an international threat, then they would just all agree to that and move on to the next item on the agenda. However, that was not the case, and Erdogan made it clear he would withhold his support for a security operation to take place in the Baltic UNLESS it was agreed that there is a dire need for NATO intervention to tackle the Kurdish problem.
It’s less about whether or not his call for help is justified or even needed, and more about his tactful use of the consensus voting system in NATO to ensure his back is scratched. Could the YPG pose as big of a collective security threat as ISIS? Many would argue that yes, and that we need to do everything we can to stop terrorist attacks like the ones we saw in 2015 and 2016. But we cannot let the egos and the “special relationships” that our world leaders have to interfere with the very-real threats on very-real people’s lives, and this whole quid pro quo Erdogan set out does exactly just that. Erdogan, like Trump, and Bolsonaro, and Duterte, and Putin, and Johnson, seems to be a man who doesn’t play by the rules and on a permanent quest to, by any means, go down in history as one of the greatest. What they all seem to forget, however, is that the position they hold is that of a public servant, i.e. put your ego aside and do what’s right for your people. If Erdogan truly was worried about the threat he feels from the YPG and other Kurdish groups, perhaps he would have opposed the military campaign that saw YPG being given all this power and support to fight off ISIS in 2015.
Could he be using the Kurdish groups as leverage to take people’s attention away from the security operation that many Baltic states have asked for? Russia, Moscow in particular, is still seen by these states as a tangible threat, and any sign of insecurity or uncertainty could be enough of a reason for Russian forces to take their positions. It seems all a bit too coincidental. After all, Russia is a massive supplier of arms to Turkey, and although their friendship has had it’s ups and downs (when you deal in the arms trade, there’s going to be a few times where you might feel like your “dear friend” let you down, Mr. Erdogan), the two are very much allies.
What Does That Say About NATO
The very reason for the creation of this organisation is one which is outdated, to say the least. Putin himself said that there’s no reason to continue NATO’s expansion since there’s no more USSR. In addition, if it can be used as a bargaining tool by heads of state as a way to further their own interests, then what really is it’s role? How many military interventions could be carried out in the name of “collective defence”? The NATO mission and support in Afghanistan, which began as a result of the attacks on 9/11, is still going and it doesn’t look like they’ll be stopping any time soon. So far, the track record doesn’t look so good. Furthermore, if we’re discussing collective defence and what is a threat to us all, perhaps it’s time to shift the conversation from “military operations in X” to “what are we going to do about this climate crisis”. The Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg has made it clear that she believes NATO could actually help prevent total climate catastrophe, by using the means they have to assess areas which are likely to see conflict over resources.
So, really, what’s the point? Other than bringing together dangerous world leaders for an evening of champagne and shrimp cocktails, giving them the space and the curtain they need to discuss their military needs, press conferences (which, thanks to Trump, have taken a whole new dimension of “trash talking”), and talking behind each other’s backs while it’s filmed and then posted on Twitter, it seems like NATO has become a Country Club for world leaders. They do work, yes, but it seems like they’re mostly there to have photo ops and press conferences reassuring and reminding the People that this is all done in the name of their security.
General Election: December 12th
This country is in need of change. Change that will no longer discriminate, and no longer fuel unnecessary wars and conflict abroad just because it’s stimulating the military-industrial economy at home (and “stimulating” is a big word, it’s more a tickle). dED_UCATION will not tell you who to vote for — your decision, whatever it may be, is your absolute right. But on December 12th, the party you vote for will have repercussions on situations like what was discussed in this article. The party you vote for will determine the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people at home and abroad. The party you vote for could either be making decisions based on our future, or they could be making decisions based on the highest bidder for F-35 jets or aircraft carriers. Your vote is your choice, but in an international arena like the one we’re currently in, your choice of party could lead to major shifts internationally.
