‘Too long maligned and misunderstood – it’s time to fully appreciate NATO’
‘BRITAIN COULD NOT HAVE THRIVED DOMESTICALLY WITHOUT THE POST-WAR SECURITY PROVIDED BY NATO’. Picture by Jannik
The Accidental Diplomat, a column by Paul Knott
Don’t believe Russia’s lies, NATO is a force for good and the most successful international organisation ever created
The enduring achievements of the Labour government that took office after the Second World War are justly lauded. Despite persistent attempts by some other governments to undermine them over the eight decades since they were established, the NHS and the welfare state continue to provide great things like pensions and to protect the British people against ill health, unemployment and other misfortunes.
Oddly, the third pillar of that post-war Attlee government’s towering legacy is less heralded. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – better know by its acronym NATO – was established in 1949 and has grown to include 31 European and North American member countries. The British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was the driving force behind its creation.
In the aftermath of the fight against fascism and the looming threat of Stalin’s murderous brand of communism, Bevin saw clearly how the free countries of Europe would have to come together in a military alliance and attract the support of the USA in order to protect themselves, making sure “never again” really meant something this time.
The result of Bevin’s labours has been a resounding triumph. In terms of meeting its objectives, NATO is probably the most successful international organisation ever established. Without the security umbrella it has provided to Britain and its allies, no other progress – such as the NHS, economic rebuilding, democracy and freedom – would have been possible.
And yet, NATO is also perhaps the most misunderstood of any international organisation. It is often forgotten that NATO, almost uniquely in history for a military alliance, was established on a purely defensive, rather than aggressive, basis. Its principles are best encapsulated by the famous Article 5 of its founding treaty, which says “an armed attack against one or more member state in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all” and commits them to defend one another. By deterring would-be attackers through this collective strength and solidarity, it has preserved peace for its member countries for an unprecedented length of time.
Some of the misconceptions about NATO are a result of its success in deterring our enemies from attacking us militarily. This has left them with little option but to try to undermine NATO and our security by other means, such as “information warfare”, which is a fancy way of saying spreading lies about it.
Russia does this more than any other country because it correctly sees NATO as the biggest obstacle to its plans to force its former colonies in Central and Eastern Europe back under its jackboot.
Moscow’s propaganda relentlessly peddles the line that NATO is a threat to it and, just by existing, somehow made it bomb schools, homes and hospitals across Ukraine (which is not a NATO member). Or that NATO, particularly its largest member country, the US, tricked numerous free and democratic European countries into joining it.
This is all clearly ridiculous and akin to looking through the telescope from the wrong end. The real question is why all of Russia’s European neighbours are so desperately keen to seek the defensive protection NATO offers, and against whom do they need defending. The answer is, of course, Russia and its repeated attempts to rain death and destruction on them in order to make them bend to its will.
SOLIDARITY: The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin lit in the national colours of Ukraine. NATO members like Germany are supporting Ukraine while the organisation itself carefully avoids direct confrontation with Russia. Picture by Vladyslav Melnyk
The Kremlin also tries to distract attention from this reality by pushing the myth that there was an “agreement” after the Cold War ended in the early 1990s that NATO would not expand its membership beyond western Europe. Leaving aside the matter of how anyone would go about denying a group of sovereign countries their right to join any alliance they choose, no such agreement ever existed.
This myth is based on a throwaway comment about the possible demilitarisation of the newly unified Germany made over lunch by ex-US Secretary of State James Baker. But, as the then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who was on the other side of the table, later confirmed, this, like many of the vague suggestions that are routinely raised in such informal discussions, was quickly dismissed in favour of the other options adopted to maintain security in Europe.
Whilst you will find no mention of any supposed pledge not to bring new members into NATO in any of these agreements, those that do actually exist include the 1993 Budapest Memorandum. As part of this deal, Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia, in return for Russia promising to respect its borders and independence. This agreement has, of course, now been broken by Russia.
Had there ever been any truth in the nonsense that NATO intends to attack Russia, then that period in the 1990s, when Russia was at its absolute weakest, would have been the time to do it. Instead, what actually happened was that NATO countries poured billions of dollars of aid into Russia to prop it up and save it from the consequences of its own misgovernment.
Indeed, NATO went even further than that by establishing the NATO-Russia Council, a mechanism designed to pursue consultation, cooperation and joint action with Russia on security issues. With tedious predictability, Russia failed to engage productively in this structure and ultimately destroyed it by murdering dissidents on European streets, invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine (for the first time) in 2014.
Even now, amidst all of the war crimes and atrocities Russia is committing in Ukraine, and the weak position it has put itself in through its idiotic invasion, NATO is bending over backwards to avoid direct involvement and confrontation with Russia.
The most valid criticism of NATO may be that, with hindsight, it should have been less timid about upsetting Russia and granted Ukraine membership several years ago. This would likely have deterred Putin from attacking it.
Ironically, for a while during the 1990s after the fall of the Iron Curtain it did seem possible that peace in Europe had been secured and NATO would no longer have a purpose. Some of its expansion might never have happened had Russia’s aggression not firmly reminded us of its reason for existing. Thankfully, NATO’s slide into irrelevance was stopped and Russia, for all of its loud threats and unprovoked attacks on its other neighbours, has been deterred from militarily assaulting a NATO member state.
It is impossible to know now what exactly was in Ernie Bevin’s mind back in the 1940s when he pushed for the creation of NATO. But the UK and Europe’s failure to stop the rise of fascism in the 1930s due to division and disorganisation must have weighed heavily in his calculations. Thanks to his efforts and, most of all, those who serve in NATO’s armed forces, we now have a strong barrier to protect us from the toxic sludge of Kremlin aggression, criminality and fascism. Perhaps we should be as proud and supportive of NATO as we are of the NHS.
Become a Patron of The Hull Story. For just £2.50 a month you can help support this independent journalism project. Find out more here