Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded

Jonathan Steele argues for the disbandment of NATO:

We must go all the way, up to the termination of Nato. An alliance which should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the US an unfair and unreciprocated droit de regard over European foreign policy.

As long as we are officially embedded as America’s allies, the default option is that we have to support America and respect its “leadership”. This makes it harder for European governments to break ranks, for fear of being attacked as disloyal. The default option should be that we, like they, have our interests. Sometimes they will coincide. Sometimes they will differ. But that is normal.

But is this kind of disengagement from the US a positive thing? Will not European and US interests collide, leading to further fragmentation of relations?

3 thoughts on “Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded”

  1. I would argue that the US disengaged from us first and as long as George Bush is in the White House that will remain the case. Therefore we, (EU) need to get our act together and provide an opposition to their policies. Remember that the Cold War never actually became a real war (except in hell holes like Afghanistan) because there was a balance. We need a new balance. Maybe then they (the US hawks) won’t feel like they can ignore everyone.

  2. The issue with this is that it could lead to a new cold war – as academics like Charles Kupchan have argued. At the very least by balancing EU power with the US (unlikely to happen for quite a while, if ever). A cold war is still a war, Afghanistan is one example of a number that were small proxy wars – surely any war, cold or not, would not benefit global stability – and definately not benefit either party.

  3. It is in Europe’s interest to pursue longterm policies for a politically stable, environmentally sustainable and economically viable Europe.
    Bending back-wards to appease to USA policies are likely to provide global stability in the short term. Alliance needs to be based on mutually compatible policies which foster mutual respect. It is evident relationship between the USA and Europe has frayed due to the USA’s policies drifting more to the right. It may be wise to wait until the next presidential election to determine whether this policy drift is an anomaly that will realign itself or an actual turning point in US culture. If the latter is true, Europe must seek alliances elsewhere to reduce the risk of the US fragmenting it in a unipolar world.

    Perhaps the most significant issue in 21st-century geopolitics, East Asia’s economic ascendancy prompts vital questions. Would it be rational policy or imperialist meddling for the United States and Europe to try to contain and control the eastward flow of capital and jobs? For that matter, would an attempt to rein in China’s breakneck growth only precipitate global recession, or even war? The cycles of superpower are getting shorter and we cannot assume that the US will be the only superpower forever.

    While the United States and its military allies carry a crusade in Afghanistan and Iraq, China and its East Asian partners are now perceived as an oasis of stability—and they are taking every opportunity to advance their agendas. It is likely that the United States will continues to be distracted by what it sees as its global right & responsibilities (and what the majority of the world rightly sees as global obsessions), sooner or later it will win those small battles it created but lost the struggle that counts most. Europe must put contingency plans into effect to be a viable player in the next fifty years. Blindly abiding to the US for a false sense of security will only distract it from seeing the future clearly.

Comments are closed.