Memorandum on US Policy Concerning NATO
To: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America
From: William D. Troast, Foreign Policy Expert
Date: 1 March 2018
Subject: Restructuring NATO
As the outright leaders on the international stage, the United States is at a very interesting crossroad. We have the ability to change the national order for our the greater good, but by doing so independently, we risk losing many long-standing alliances as well as upsetting those who we are not directly aligned with. If this is to happen, the United States overarching power could come to end. Mr. President, since coming into office you have made it clear that you no longer support the various multilateral treaty organizations that we currently partake in, most specifically NATO. Although I do agree that this organization is not acting in our best interest now, that can change. The total abandonment of this group will put us in a very dangerous situation in which we have many more enemies, but if we can work with other nations to update NATO and move past its initial purpose, then not only will the region benefit, but we can amplify our national interests.
Context
NATO was created as a direct response to growing threat that was communism after the cold war which eventually grew into the Cold War. The issue today is that the Cold War ended in 1991, 27 years ago. NATO served its purpose of uniting the countries in the North Atlantic against Russia and communism exceptionally well, but now that the Cold War is over what remains for the organization? It is time that NATO is brought into the 21st century.
Task
The task is simple: we must return to our philosophical roots. We must promote a world in which others feel safe to exist in whichever way they desire. With the threat of communism gone, NATO’s fundamental purpose has disappeared. For NATO to continue to serve a purpose the new threat must be determined. The new threat that the country has been focused on for the past two presidencies has been the threat of Ideological Terrorism. With the new threat identified, we must also analyze other areas of concern such as: Should they engage in preventative military operations or will they only going to concern themselves with member nations of NATO? How far can their military power expand?
Solution
Although NATO was originally created to prevent the spread of communism into the North Atlantic region of the world, the member nations of NATO make up some of the most powerful nations in the world. If they were to restrict their involvement to only the nations being affected in that region it would be a waste of military power. NATO should be centered in the North Atlantic, but much like many of the doctrines that the US has developed throughout their various presidencies, it should act in other parts of the world as well to ensure that security can be found all over the world. Safety must be the NATO’s main goal regardless of where it is required. Instead of engaging in military actions as they did during the cold war, shorter police actions should suffice to show that terrorist organizations cannot get away with whatever they want.
Conclusion
The multilateral treaties that formed after World War II are very close to reaching their expiration. Although they have become more of a detriment then a benefit, that does not mean that the United States should abandon them all together. In this interconnected world, the United States needs its allies more than ever before. NATO is a prime example of an organization in which reforms can be conducted so a seemingly irrelevant organization can once again become a staple that keeps the world safe.
Billy, I think your proposal of restructuring NATO rather than completely abandoning it is definitely a valid argument. My only question, however, is in regards to Russia. NATO was originally created to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, specifically towards Central Eastern European countries. I think in considering how NATO can be restructured, we should still be thinking about the threat of Russia, especially in light of the current controversy of Russia's interference in our elections. The threat of Russia in the current world is clearly much different than the threat it posed at NATO's inception, but it still should not be completely disregarded if NATO were to be restructured.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are arguing for, but I do not agree. The idea that NATO should act as a form of police unit for the world is not something that I really agree with because of what it looks like and what it really in the end means. It means that Western nations decide what is best for the world, and those that are in the block are the ones who say how the world works.
ReplyDeleteI would argue for NATO being abandoned as well, hoping to move towards a more broad international cooperation. This would not mean that if a country were invaded, the United States or others could not come to their defense. Instead, what it would mean is that each case is treated on an individual basis, with the most important players (countries in the region) having more say. The United States just is not necessarily the right person to get involved in many of the worlds issues, and they have to be solved on a more diplomatic and individualized basis. Afghanistan should be something that the United States has a say in, but why is Iran left so in the dark? Does the United States really have more of an interest than they do? Yet the case is clear that Iran has been left at the sideline, and as a result they have a bone to pick and continue to pick it, adding to the lack of stabilization there.