|
|
||
|
Special thanks to President Caplan for submitting articles and providing us with a little more credibility. Is NATO still relevant? by North High School Democrats' Club President Josh Caplan For many years Walter Cronkite would sign off with the famous line, "That�s the way it is." Today, I will tell you the way it is, and then I will show you how it will change. Many claim that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as NATO, has become archaic. This is an erroneous statement in several different ways. In order to fully appreciate the true fallacy of NATO critics, one has to know the purpose and the history of this organization. First, lets look at a brief history of NATO. NATO was initially chartered in April of 1949. The original primary purpose of NATO was to hold two countries in check: Germany and the USSR. Germany was still considered a potential threat after its involvement in World War One and Two. This may seem ludicrous because of the extreme damage that was caused to Germany with the end of World War Two. The German economy was all but ruined. How could they be a threat to anyone? Yet, when one looks at history, Germany was in equally bad shape at the end of World War One. They then built up in a matter of years to become a world power. NATO held Germany in check by making it a member. It would appear that the founding fathers of NATO had come to the conclusion that it is wise to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. The USSR, also known as the Soviet Union, on the other hand was considered a threat because of the formidable military force that it commanded at the time. The Soviet Union had a history of conquering other nations and turning them into communist societies. NATO was chartered on the eve of imperialism, and the dawn of the Cold War. The founding fathers of NATO had come to the conclusion that the USSR would be a future threat. They were correct. The Soviet Union conquered a large number of Eastern European countries in the years following the creation of NATO. On top of this, the United States and the Soviet Union fought a Cold War for over forty years. NATO held the USSR in check by creating an alliance of 12 militarily mighty nations to oppose it. Through the years, the number of countries that claim membership to NATO has risen form 12 to 19. The majority of these new countries hail from the Balkan region. The members include: Belgium; Canada; Czech Republic; Denmark; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; Luxembourg; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Spain; Turkey; the United Kingdom; and the United States. The road that NATO has traveled has not been paved with roses. NATO has been very controversial, even amongst its own members. After the Cuban Missile Crises, France came to the conclusion that its best course of action would be to leave this alliance. France chose this point in history because the United States of America showed that it will conduct foreign policy in whatever way it chose. Many countries feared that the US would disregard a global utilitarian policy for a policy that would resemble an autocratic global society. France was alone when it left, but it placed a seed in the minds of all members that can still be seen today. As a side note, France was readmitted to NATO some years later. Many critics claimed that after the USSR fell in 1991, that the purpose of NATO ended with it. At this point, they argued, the fear of Germany had subsided and the USSR was no longer a threat. These critics were only half right. True, there was no longer anything to fear from Germany or the USSR. However, the true purpose of NATO is far from over. The NATO charter states that " The Parties to this treaty... desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments." The charter then goes on to state "..They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security." This Gargantuan goal of world defense has been a long road, and unfortunately, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout the mid to late 1990s, NATO peacekeeping forces have spent considerable time and manpower trying to secure the Balkan areas. In Macedonia NATO played a pivotal role in the capture of Slobodan Milosevic, the infamous master of genocide. Unfortunately, at the same time that Milosevic starts his trial, Macedonia continues its domestic fighting, including driving President Trajkovski from the country. NATO also spent time in the Kosovo area with favorable results. NATO brought an end to the genocide that was facing the ethnic Albanians. In 2003, NATO strengthened Turkey�s air force in order to protect them from their overly aggressive neighbors. This reinforcement included two of NATO�s prized AWACS radar planes. This is just another stage of NATO. A characteristic of NATO that is only rarely seen in other global organizations is NATO�s inherent elastic abilities. NATO�s job will never be over. NATO will change as the world changes, as countries change, as global threats change. Yesterday, NATO focused on the Soviet threat. Today, NATO focuses on the Baltic area. Tomorrow, NATO will focus on somewhere else. Maybe South America. Maybe Europe. Definitely somewhere. All of this brings up the question of the UN. Some may ask, what is the difference between the UN and NATO? The difference is not always clear. One main difference is found in geographics. NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and for this reason deals primarily with its members in the Atlantic and European areas. The UN encompasses almost all of the countries in the world. For this reason, they work on more of the world-wide issues. Another defining difference is that NATO was originally designed to create peace by keeping certain countries in check. The UN was designed to create peace by global unity, not sectional unity. For over 55 years, NATO has been a pivotal player in international matters. For a large portion of their existence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has tried to protect the world by hindering a select few countries. For the rest of its existence, it will protect the world by fighting battles, signing pacts, and halting oppression where ever possible. The answer is yes, NATO is still relevant in global society. Who Is Left? by North High School Democrats' Club President Josh Caplan Dark and overcast, the sound of booming thunder resounds in the air. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the sounds are not really thunder. Mortar explosions are disturbing the deathly quiet. The rancid odor of blood and brimstone permeates the air. Suddenly, in an explosion of sound and smoke, a tree twenty feet away ceases to exist. Sharp reports from hundreds of guns follow. The unit commander starts to yell something but never finishes. The newly wounded begin to scream. With a start, the man sits up and looks around, only to see his wife�s concerned gaze. The knowledge of the morality of his war has little effect in easing his dreams and muting the sound of his comrades screaming. The definition of insanity has often been regarded as doing the same activity again and again, but expecting a different result. War after war has been fought for the same reasons using the same strategies, yet always expecting different outcomes: whether it is surrender; withdrawal from a country; or an increased willingness to trade. Unfortunately these hard sought values, paid for in the currency of human lives, are rarely achieved. When these goals are achieved, however, the loss of human life makes any victory a pyrrhic victory. Throughout the history of the world, countless wars with countless battles have been fought. In all of these battles, men and women have died. In some battles less than a dozen have died while in others the number is closer to a million. Unfortunately, in some battles the death that is caused does not resolve the conflict. Often, it gives one or even both sides an increased reason to continue the fight. Regardless of the injuries taken, governments seek a way to justify the reason why they continue the fight. In World War I, President Wilson stated that, "The world must be safe for democracy." Oddly enough, democracy was never in danger. In Vietnam, it was a fight against communism. This was also true in the Korean War. Both times, the United States Federal Government justified the purpose of these wars as a fight over governmental theories: Capitalism vs. Communism. In reality it was a fight over power. Power is the perception of control. Almost every war in history has been the heads of state fighting over this phantasmagory, or illusion, condemning men to die and destroying families in the process. The change of power cannot be used as a justification for a war. Upon intense scrutiny, it can be seen that all countries and all forms of government have done horrendous acts in the name of preserving power. After the French revolution, the victors executed everyone who did not wholly agree with them. Germany committed the Holocaust during the 1930s and 1940s. During World War Two, the United States Federal Government forced many Japanese-Americans to live in interment camps. To this day, Muslim men are arbitrarily deported and there are men who were arrested in September of 2001 that are still in jail because of inconsistencies in their Visas, but they have yet to be deported. No country is pure enough to have the right to say that their way of life, or government, is better than another. No country has the right to kill to try to prove it. Bertrand Russell explained this theory best when he said, "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." Some believe that a war is justified if it is fought in self-defense. Using this logic, no war in the history of the world has been warranted. A war has to be justified from both sides of an issue in order to be considered a just war. This means that if a country attacks another country, it is a rationalized war for the country on the defense only. However, it is unjustified for the attacking country to attack; therefore, it is an unjust war in general. Interestingly enough, a just war is considered just if there is a reasonable chance for success. This is interesting because if an attacking country uses a stronger force and the defending country still tries to fight, it is an unjust war for the defending country. The Vietnam War was an unjust war. A way to test the justification of war is that the violence and destruction caused must be proportional to the injury suffered. North Vietnam never injured the United States physically or economically. Yet the United States still sent in troops. When the United State�s Army attacked, the damage to the countries of North Vietnam and South Vietnam were of an odious nature. To this day, large areas of these two countries are still completely uninhabitable. In a just war, great care must be taken to avoid civilian casualties. This did not occur in the Vietnam War. In this war, entire villages were firebombed out of existence. Many civilians were executed by American troops, especially in Mylai. This is completely immoral. Another standard used to determine the justification of a war is that the consequences of the war must be better then the status quo or the possible future status quo. Political instability and economic turmoil resulted in more damage to the United States as a result of fighting in the war then was caused by the regional conflict between the two Vietnams. This war was unjustified by the very standards that were used to try to justify it. The United States recently ousted the oppressive government in Afghanistan known as the Taliban. This war was unjust in the worst of ways. As stated, in a just war, civilian casualties must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, in this military conflict, countless civilians died. The war against the Taliban was also unjust because of a previously mentioned theory: the damage caused must be proportional to the damage inflicted. The only damage that the Afghanistan caused to the United States would be that they had close ties with criminals known as terrorists. These terrorists as a whole were not members of the Taliban nor were they citizens of Afghanistan. That makes this an unjust war as a result of civilian casualties and the excessive damage caused to the enemy. William Sherman once summed up war with the three words, "War is Hell." Not only is war Hell, but often it is unjustified. Several wars have been proven unjustified using all of the standards that are used to exonerate war. As a result of the financial cost, the loss of lives, and the political upheaval, war performs a poor job of solving the problems that need to be solved and meeting its objectives. Can any action ever be worth the mass loss of human lives? The answer is no. |
