Is NATO A Global Threat? – OpEd
After the defeat of Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had no such role to play in international politics, but it interrupted into to number of issues to become alive. At the moment NATO is almost involved in every inter-states or intra-states issues of the world. In this way, it has set its aggressive strategy to keep the hegemony of United States which claims that it is able to resolve international disputes with the use of force. The use of air force against Serb forces in Bosnia in 1994, air attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 and later Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003 are the key facts of their aggressive policies. The attitude and the policies of NATO in the contemporary world have been proved as a great or global threat for the world’s peace and harmony.
Military adventurism of NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia, its sanctions on Iran and Cuba and the drone strikes on Pakistan is the components of the aggressive strategy of US and its allies to keep hegemony or dominancy on the key regions and emerging states of the world. No doubt that West has achieved many goals by applying such sort of strategy but it must not forget that the policy of confrontation and world domination can not be sustained so long.
It is a perception that NATO missions are only against the Muslim world, but it has an enormous objects or interests even to the non-Muslims nations. In this regard China and Russia are still on its priority. For containing China it is militarizing the whole Southeast Asian region and has made a plan to contain the Russian influence by installing the missile shields in Balkan regions. On the Georgia accession, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has categorically stated that Russia is more concern about Georgia’s accession into NATO. The Georgia’s accession into NATO could push the Georgian authorities to repeat the events of August 2008.
It is fact that due to debt crisis, US and its NATO ally states are facing worst financial crisis. Many members are in favour of cutting defence budget of NATO. On the other hand its current peace talks with Taliban show its anxiety of defeat by Taliban in Afghanistan. The top civilian leadership of NATO want to enlarge the organization’s mandate in keeping with the changing circumstances with regards to overcoming resistance from China and Russia. Because policy maker of both states regularly stress the unique legitimacy of the United Nations specifically, the UN Security Council, where Beijing and Moscow can veto proposed resolution to authorize collective military actions. It is clear that NATO wants to keep Russia, China, and India intact because these three states might not welcome permanent NATO presence in Central Asia, and likely suspect that alliance leaders are trying to haul them into the Afghan imbroglio on NATO’s behalf.
If NATO is worried about the peace and security of word, and concerned about the humanitarianism or nuclear weapons then why it is not playing an effective role in resolving the regional issues like Palestine and Kashmir? Or why NATO does not search for a diplomatic role for resolving to the alleged Iranian nuclear programme? These are the facts which show the clear negative image of NATO. NATO has failed to deliver on the diplomatic solutions rather involved in massive bloodshed. The existence of ‘axis of evil’ list shows the prevailing threat of NATO to the global peace.
