RSS

As Wallace Thies noted in his 2009 book Why NATO Endures, the perpetual arguments that NATO is dying almost uniformly make two key errors. The first is in their assignation of causes for observed strife within NATO, of which expansion is only the latest suspect. The second is in examining expansion as a cause, rather than an effect, of an evolving post-Cold War NATO. These flaws in perspective lead to the repeated conclusion that NATO will soon collapse, and thus shower us with the latest round of doomsayers.

Luckily, recent authors like Thies have been critically examining these claims and providing a clearer picture of the actual state of NATO. This new scholarship illustrates three main points: first, that the pessimistic predictions arise from a flawed interpretation of NATO and its expansion policy; second, that these interpretations come from using theoretical lenses inappropriate to the case of NATO; and third, that using more appropriate theoretical perspectives can illuminate the true issues facing NATO (of which there are many) and provide insight into how to deal with them. In their views, NATO still faces great challenges, but in contrast to the popular narrative, they show that rumours of NATO's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Jason Naselli is an editor at Atlantic Community.

October 26, 2011

Jordan

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

This Author has probably never been to the other 90% of the NATO member states. Before writing a paper on NATO's future the writer should have taken into account the public's opinion of the NATO member states. It is after all the people who direct the course and future of the individual countries. Some current NATO member countries may have a referendum on staying or leaving NATO..

Tags: | Referendum on Leaving NATO |

October 26, 2011

Jason Naselli, University of Essex, Platinum Contributor (208)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm not certain of your point about public opinion: are you saying there is strong public opinion against NATO? I've actually been to quite a few member states,and I've found that most people don't think about NATO very much. And those that do tend to have a neutral to favourable opinion; NATO has even received a bit of a recent public boost with its successful Libya intervention.

Regardless, referendums aren't needed to join or leave NATO; plenty of countries have done both without them. Those countries that have held referendums, like Hungary and Slovenia, have come away with landslide wins for membership. So I don't see how this is even a minor issue right now for the Alliance.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org