As the world becomes increasingly more complicated, and troubles in one place seem to jump around the globe in no time, we should consider international organizations and weigh if they make things better or worse for the United States of America.
A common argument against power structures above the nation-state level is that they diminish national independence and autonomy. Really, any such diminution is only by agreement of the participating state; we’re free shape the terms of any treaty, council, or association prior to choosing to join up.
A challenge facing all parts of the world these days is migration, and the pressure on countries where non-residents seek to move regardless of borders they have no legal permission to cross. If parts of the world are allowed to disintegrate into chaos, we can only expect people to flee from misery with their families in search of better places to live out their lives. This doesn’t mean less chaotic places have to take in all who seek to move there, but it does demand attention to how all people who live on this planet can reduce the supply side of the refugee equation.
Strong responses to unacceptable military actions by states which chose to violate international norms and invade and annex their neighbors, and to dictatorial regimes that treat their populations brutally, are essential to trying to keep populations from becoming refugees in the first place. These acts of strength also come with being the world’s only remaining super-power. If the U.S. doesn’t do it, it is likely no one will.
The United Soviet Socialist Republics was the epicenter of global communism as the second World War ended, and its Russian leaders were hell-bent to impose their political system as far west as possible across Europe (and across the Atlantic, if they could). In 1948, the USSR conspired to take over Czechoslovakia and force it behind the rapidly descending iron curtain. Soon thereafter, the Soviets surrounded Berlin, necessitating an airlift and a year of great tension resulting from Russia’s hostile territorial aggressions denying the other occupying World War II victors access to the German capital.
The U.S., UK and other western powers decided not to allow the situation to deteriorate, and on the April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by the U.S. and 11 other nations to create permanent military co-operational ability. Turkey joined in 1952, giving the alliance additional geographic relevance, and today NATO has 28 members, all but one are functioning democracies.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides that an armed attack against any NATO member constitutes an attack against all members, and calls for action as members deem necessary, including using armed forces. Article 5 has only been invoked once, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Americans have thanked our allies’ response in our time of need and we need to honor our commitments to them and our mutual promises going forward.
NATO members pay directly for what the organization does when they commit soldiers and other resources to specific military operations, either in exercises or actual deployments. Each member also pays a percentage of their gross national income to underwrite joint costs that make the alliance operationally functional. While some larger NATO members have fallen somewhat short in recent years, the small and newer members tend to be in compliance with their funding obligations. They are also the reason why NATO exists.
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s spokesman this week described Vladimir Putin as a “devious thug,” and it’s hard to argue with this characterization. The Crimea is part of the Ukraine, an independent nation, and there is no moral or legal basis to argue any other way. One may instinctually think the shores of Black Sea are too far away to matter, but this is a huge mistake: containing the expansionist and conflict-seeking whims of Putin is an international imperative; denying this constitutes denying everything the U.S. has stood for since we emerged as a nation on the global stage at the turn of the 20th century.
My favorite course at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service was taught by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s United Nations ambassador: “Pluralism, Competition & Democracy.” I was enraptured at every lecture, as Professor Kirkpatrick walked us through how democratic societies, as opposed to dictatorships and other forms of government, tend to have greater economic systems and higher qualities of life, safety, health and social order. Independent media, judicial systems and other stable social institutions are essential, and when these things go missing things go awry as they have in Russia and other dictatorships.
Russia’s current autocratic behavior is a basis for which for all Americans, and our allies and friends in member nations, to renew our commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty.
To return to the cost-benefit analysis: the only Article 5 invocation was to help the U.S., and otherwise NATO has deterred instability and aggression for 67 years. It has the potential help solve continuing crises such the Syria Civil War and its attendant refugee crisis. NATO will play a central role to ending ISIS as far as such eradication is possible. With the UK leaving the European Union, now is the worst possible time to discuss any harmful dismantling of international institutions.
It is more important instead to learn more about and support those institutions in existence, and to encourage their continued improvement.
• Ben Brown is an attorney who lives in Juneau.
