NATO!

There are over 300 intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) in the world. Comprised of member states the goals of IGOs vary from healthcare, global warming, human rights, mutual defense, and peacekeeping. The premise of IGOs is an effective approach toward multilateral global politics, with states working as one to reach a mutual goal, in other terms a Liberal approach to international policy. The idealistic effective IGO is one by which member nations put aside their own nationalist interest and collaborate with other member nations in a way that benefits all.

               The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or more commonly known as NATO, was created in 1949 after the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, DC. NATO was created in response the Soviet Union consolidating much of what is known as the Eastern Bloc, border countries in Eastern Europe that border Russia, in order to create a mutual defense against any further Soviet aggression against member states, essentially Western Europe and North America. While much of NATO’s history is predicated on the Cold War the organization continues to operate to this day and has been involved in conflicts such as the war in Afghanistan, Bosnia in the 1990’s, Kosovo, and today engages in training missions for the Iraqi army in Iraq. NATO is also known by its French designation, the traditional OTAN, Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord, due to French being the traditional language in which diplomacy is often engaged in and which is oddly enough is NATO spelled backwards.

               NATO is essentially an alliance between North Atlantic nations that ensures mutual defense, as stated by article 5 of the Washington treaty. While article 5 has only been invoked once, in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, NATO often engages in interventions, euphemistically referred to as crisis-management, to help ensure stability on the European continent. There are 28 members of NATO today, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, The United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

NATO is an example of multilateral diplomacy, member nations consult with each other before making a decision that may affect one or more of its members. The benefits of multilateral diplomacy include transparency, defusing tensions between member nations, as well as limiting the conflicting and secretive treaties between other nations. Yet according to realist diplomacy multilateral diplomacy can stifle a nation’s own security and bring them into conflicts that they are unwilling to engage in themselves, France exemplified this attitude in its three decade absence from NATO starting in the 1950’s. Member nations make decisions on security issues through a consensus, “Consensus decision-making means that there is no voting at NATO. Consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached… In general, this negotiation process is rapid since members consult each other on a regular basis and therefore often know and understand each other's positions in advance.” (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49178.htm)

According to the NATO website, “NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.” (http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html). NATO’s goals are predicated on the Democratic Peace theory that maintains that Democracy seldom go to war together, by helping other nations, developing or former third world, to become Democracies NATO is ensure global stability according to the theory. NATO is a peacekeeping organization, its intent is to deter war through collective security.

 One example of NATO’s purpose in bolstering Democracy in the world is its training missions in Iraq. Since the Iraq War the nation has struggled to rebuild itself and has often fallen prey to aggressive sectarianism, the resulting factionalism of failed states, that has caused continued conflict in the region. The purpose of NATO’s training missions in Iraq is the equip the Iraqi Army with the means to address threats on its own without the help of the United States or other member nations, which in turn will create an allied democracy in the Middle East.

While NATO is a collective of Western nations along the Atlantic it often times works with other nations in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Gulf regions. The organization uses partnerships to help build international security. NATO assists partner nations with all manners of defense building, from military training, to government policy, infrastructure, and other educational and consultative methods. This practice of creating partnerships borrows from the more liberal tradition of global politics, that helping other nations address security concerns and human rights is more beneficial than merely attending to national interests. NATO’s expanding presence as a security force outside of the Atlantic continues to grow, just recently NATO held one of its largest summit in history.

NATO’s future goals have been recently outlined in a Summit held between the nation countries as well as representatives from the EU, which had just seen the exit of the United Kingdom, as well as the World Bank in Warsaw. NATO and EU cooperation was solidified in the two day summit, “The hope is that working together and combining the EU’s soft power with NATO’s hard power will make both organizations better at addressing hybrid threats”( http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/19368/nato-summit-puts-eu-s-security-ambitions-back-in-the-spotlight). Oddly enough concerns over Russia, with its recent aggression in the Ukraine as well as involvement in Syria, continues to be a concern much as the nation was when it was known as the Soviet Union. NATO forces are also addressing the refugee crisis as well as placing battalions in the Baltic.

NATO uses hard power to accomplish security goals, it is an organization based upon defense. The future of NATO remains to be seen but the organization has been playing more prominent roles in developing the security of developing and failed states as well as cooperating with other IGOs to increase security. NATO is perhaps as strong as it has ever been.

Bibliography:

"What Is NATO?". 1949. What Is NATO?. http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/19368/nato-summit-puts-eu-s-security-ambitions-back-in-the-spotlight

10 Questions:

1.NATO spelled backwards stands for?

2. How many member nations are there in NATO?

3. NATO uses this type of power in its diplomacy:

4. How is NATO active today?

5. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed to check aggression by what state?

6. Which of these nations are not in NATO

               a. Slovakia

               b. Turkey

               c. France

               e. Great Britain

               f. Cyprus

               g. Latvia

               h. Switzerland

               i. Norway

7. What is the purpose of article 5 in the North Atlantic Treaty?

8. How many times has article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty been enacted?

9. What are some of the outcomes of the recent NATO summit?

10. Is NATO an IGO?

The Five Conservative Vying to be Britain's Next Prim Minister

Alright I'll be completely honest I don't know if this cartoon has anything to do with the article but its funny... even though I honestly don't really get it.

International news has become so inundated by the British exit from the European Union, in shorthand Brexit, that perhaps I had no other choice but to cover it for my analysis. Following the dramatic resignation of David Cameron as prime minister and the subsequent announcement of Boris Johnson that he will not be seeking the leadership of the conservative party, the British Conservative party is in peril and just who will be the next prime minister of the Conservative party controlled parliament the future remains anyone’s guess.

Outlined in the article are five candidates for the position that will perhaps be left vacant until early September, notable most of the candidates were for the exit and none vow to stay in the European Union. While the names may be a bit unfamiliar to American readers, well unless they are Anglophiles, they all have an impressive resume, from a seemingly popular former reporter Michael Gove, who is perhaps the favored candidate, to more staunchly conservative Theresa May, the race for party leadership should promise to be quite an exciting moment of politics, and perhaps a welcome break from our own presidential race (is it November yet? Seriously).

Britain’s decision to depart from the European Union is a bit of a surprise to many, predicated on trade restrictions, national autonomy, and immigration (the EU calls for open borders) many had expected that Great Britain would remain in the European Union. The European Union is perhaps one of the newer vestiges of the international liberalism that began with Woodrow Wilson following the end of the First World War. Having blamed the Great War on the rampant nationalism of European nations, as well as the tangled secret peace treaties and alliances between competing nations, which preceded the war.

Liberal internationalism calls for transnational transparency and cooperation. The European Union is also typical of the liberal institutions such as the emphasis of rule by law rather than national self-interest, which is one of its larger contrasting points with realism. With basic principles being predicated on universal human rights on the European continent, sound trade principals, common currency and shared economic interests between European nations, The EU attempts (or soon perhaps attempted with rumblings of a French and even German exit the future of the European Union is anything but certain) to put into practice the liberal idea that what is good for the whole is good for the part, while the Realist may balk at idea in typical pessimism, liberal institutions take self-interest on a broader scale. The European Union was seen as a triumph to liberal idealists as the end of European nationalism in favor of a system of collective security among nations, yet the dramatic and undoubtedly historic departure of Great Britain from the Union may just see an untimely end to these ambitions.

I got fifty on Gove!

While our textbook, showing just how much times had changed since the Bush years, had essential proclaimed the end of nationalism as fait acompli, the post-recession years have seen a dramatic increase of nationalistic rhetoric from world leaders and politicians. Right wingers and Realists have seized growing hot button issues such as immigration, refugee crises, and global austerity as part and parcel for ambitions platforms that have only waxed in popularity. Nationalism is once again rearing its ugly head in global politics, the idea of exiting NATO, scaling global trade, as well as exiting the European Union were formerly fringe political positions and are now becoming more and more popular with voting constituencies in the world’s democracies. With the Brexit the world has perhaps not seen the end of the dismantling of many of the liberal institutions that were birthed from the European continental struggles of the first and second world wars.

The future of British leadership is not only vital for the nation but also for the global community as well. As the nationalistic push for a more realist centered global policy, Great Britain could be seen as a potential Guinea pig for renewed nationalistic and isolationist fervor in global politics. The daunting task of steering the nation from what could either be declared a crisis, as today’s liberal idealists were more than wont to do following the events of June 23^rd, or a new direction in international politics, it remains to be seen. The exit from the European Union will take years and will be a very complicated process, the exit could make or break the Conservative party in the UK and these five candidates will have quite a challenge ahead of them. 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/europe/conservative-party-candidates.html

Assad Vows to Take Every Inch of Syria from His Foes

   

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad pictured with a mustache
befitting a young teen aged boy

   Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, in his first major speech since the collapse of peace talks in Geneva last April, vows to retake every inch of Syria from his foes, Assad credits the liberation of Palmyra as proof of his purpose and openly defies the United States, as well as allies Russia and Iran, whose desire is a peaceful transference of power in Syria. The International Syria Support Group, headed by Secretary of State John Kerry as well as 16 other world leaders, had seen guidelines as well as deadlines, June 1^st being the most recent, broken by the failed state. Citing humanitarian concerns, a classic concern of Liberalist diplomacy, Kerry and others have hinted that the United States has not put the idea of military escalation out of the question, a foreign policy measure that President Obama is not likely to take in the waning months of his administration claiming that there is no real American interest in the Syrian civil war. Assad rejects the new peaceful transference deadline of August 1^st and is reportedly embolden in his actions by the support of Russia, which is under question by the US for allegedly attack non-ISIS insurgent groups who are backed by the United States.  

               The Syrian war has been a bloody and seemingly endless conflict that has created a refugee crisis of over 2.5 million Syrians fleeing the region. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been claimed by the civil war. Assad’s unwillingness to cede power as well as many reports and accusations of human rights violations, as well as the threat of ISIS which is a dominant force in the region causing an outcry from the American public over provocative executions of Christians, has cause many nations and IGO’s to decry the civil war. While Assad’s government has few supports Russia has proven to be a powerful ally in the fight to bring the government back under the Shia favoring Assad government.

               The use of Humanitarian Intervention is part and parcel for liberal, or Wilsonian, diplomats and foreign policy experts. While in a more realist view that sees global intervention predicated on whether or not national interest plays into said intervention, Liberal foreign policy sees a moral obligation, as well as a Democratizing effect, of engaging in these interventions. Kerry represents such a school international diplomacy which is a bit ironic because his claim to fame came from his opposition to the Vietnam War, a war that was predicated on the good will Democratizing of the nation in an effort to fight communism in the Cold War (similar parallels could perhaps be drawn to War on Terror viz Syria). Humanitarian Intervention has a moralistic ring to it, by helping developing and war torn regions the world becomes more and friendlier to Democratic nations. Yet Humanitarian aims can be used as an excuse for imperialism, more cynically a cry for an intervention in the Middle East calls into question the continued involvement of the US in the region for the last 15 years. Whether Kerry is sincere is his desire for Humanitarian Intervention, and a creation of a more United States friendly Syria, or is merely continuing the confusing course of action that gave impetus to the Afghan and Iraq wars remains to be seen.

 Obama, perhaps rightly though I will leave my subjectivity out of this, claims that a militarized intervention in Syria is not befitting on national interests, the American people are war weary as it is. Often switching between Realist and Humanitarian style foreign policy, in the case of Syria Obama is perhaps seeking to secure his legacy of ending wars, though there remains some limited military involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, than starting wars.

The Civil War in Syria seems to have no end in sight and a second deadline for a transference of power has been set for August 1^st, what sanctions The International Syria Support Group intends for a violation of deadline was not specified in the article. Assad has largely ignored all demands made by the organization, including blocking humanitarian convoys providing food and aid at the border, and stood firmly in opposition to a 17 nation body that demands he steps down. Syria has also opened up a proverbial can of worms between the United States and Russia, the former questioning Russia’s relationship with Syria as being in opposition with foreign policy aims in the Middle East. With no end in sight the recent revelations are yet another dreary chapter in the Syrian Civil War, which has without question caused a great deal of havoc in diplomatic relations between nations the world over, from refugee disputes in Europe to a renewed power struggle between the United States and Russia, one can only hope it comes to comparatively more peaceful and uncomplicated ending.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/world/middleeast/defiant-assad-vows-to-retake-every-inch-of-syria-from-his-foes.html