Lately, the USA is challenging its rivals in the South China Sea and on the Korean peninsula. Is NATO Article 5 enough to secure its status and scare the opponent to avoid retaliation against the USA? Are the rest of the world’s superpowers in fear of facing NATO’s combined firepower, which has no equivalent in the current world?
What if there arises the need to active, Article 5 in and around the South China Sea? How many countries have the experience or resources to wage tropical warfare or have enough experience to send troops to fight in tropical climates? In no time third of NATO forces would be incapacitated by local diseases such as malaria, cholera, Chagas disease, and yellow fever, to mention just a few. Other environmental challenges include local flora, fauna, and climate phenomena like monsoons and extreme humidity. The US has trained its troops to operate in such a hostile environment for years that it would be fine.
NATO Article 5
“If a NATO Ally is a victim of an armed attack, every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.”
The mental readiness to wage war in an extraordinary and hostile environment such as the South China Sea and its surroundings would be too big a challenge for any troops unprepared for tropical warfare. However, this is precisely what the USA is depending upon. Even though the USA has the most significant military of all, it is unlikely that it would be able to wage long-term war with China or any country without the support of its allies. There remains a question would we see a situation evolve where the NATO troops would be used as cannon fodder rather than a real effective battle force?
Exploiting NATO for backup
NATO was created, for example, to protect its members in case of attack by unfriendly forces. But is it there to support the unscrupulous attempts of one member state to expand its world influence?
The naive attitude of NATO members and its many articles has created a setting where the USA can exploit NATO’s resources. The US has made this possible by supplying arms and ammunition for its NATO members. This has partly made the USA an irreplaceable asset to NATO. Furthermore, Europe’s ability to successfully defend itself against the retaliations of hostile countries is limited. Internal disagreements on strengthening the EU defense and using its limited resources have created a vacuum that the USA is currently exploiting. Another prominent aspect of the dependency is the extensive worldwide intelligence-gathering network created by the CIA and NSA. Its reach extends to the farthest corners of the world, and no one is immune to its influence.
Based on these aspects, it is practical for NATO to have more members. This means more valuable intelligence data. This is not only valuable to NATO, but it gives the USA unlimited access to foreign intelligence data without restrictions. How and where this data could be used is arguably one of the questions which should be addressed not only by the NATO members but also United Nations security council. Since the unlawful attack on Iraq in 2003, there has been a growing need to verify the data collected. It is mainly gathered for preventive measures against further potential terrorist attacks or criminal actions of unfriendly powers. But when this data is falsified and distributed along the NATO members, it should cause a moral dilemma to base military actions on it.
When the end justifies the means fail
The Iraq war showed the biggest flaw in The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Its operation relies heavily on intelligence data. It helps it to react to possible threats before they materialize. But, when its member state’s intelligence agency has falsified this data, it should start to question what else is fabricated. This questioning did not happen, or at least NATO did not reveal it before the attack. Acceptance happened in stages when it became necessary to accept responsibility for the Iraq war.
However, this did not stop the US from continuing the illegal occupation of Iraq. It took it to the next level by starting to harass the Iraq civilians, unlawfully detaining them, using torture, and dislocating civilians and military personnel to undisclosed locations worldwide. Many of these places were called “Black sites.” They were operated by the US Intelligence Agency called CIA. Their sole purpose was to gather intelligence. In this gathering, the CIA used illegal methods like water- and physiological torture and isolation. However, it was later discovered that the interrogation techniques the CIA used were not as effective as thought in means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
Black site
“Clandestine jails where prisoners generally are not charged with a crime and have no legal recourse, with no bail or court order.”
It became apparent that the Iraq war was illegally started to satisfy the general opinion and belief that the Iraqi leader was then responsible for manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them against Western civilization. This accusation was later accepted to be false. It took several years and countless civilian and military casualties before it ended in 2011. Several NATO countries took part in the Iraq war and were, therefore, equally responsible for the countless war crimes committed by the Western coalition.
The US intelligence gathering for the benefit of just few
There have been cases when intelligence data is collected on an unprecedented scale and even among US citizens and members of the NATO community. It is a clear violation of international law. However, these laws and agreements have not stopped the USA from its unscrupulous ways of spying on its allies. Even these violations committed by the US have not wavered the support of current NATO members for the USA. It can execute any crimes against friendly nations and get away with it. This is secured by the continuous efforts from the State Department to uphold the dependencies so that the support it provides to its allies would diminish the crimes it commits toward them. In the long term, this makes NATO, as well as the EU, more dependable on US support.
The recent leak of intelligence data, known as The Discord Leaks, has left European officials concerned about potential restrictions on allies’ access to future reports from Washington. Numerous confidential papers within the leaked documents have been labelled “NOFORN,” signifying that they are prohibited from being disclosed to individuals not citizens of the United States of America. Others were cleared to be shared with close U.S. allies, including Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Some documents suggest that the fallout from the leak will not just affect the United States but also reveal U.S. intelligence about British and Canadian activities. It is unclear whether there are more documents to be leaked, and this was only the first batch.
The future of the alliance
It is uncertain how long NATO and EU countries will tolerate the US’s mistrust towards its allies. It has become apparent that the next conflict involving the US might be the next “false war” in its whole entity. Keeping that in mind, the newest NATO member, Finland, should weigh the cons and pros carefully before it agrees to the impending DCA with the US.