Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/02/06 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau provides a thorough overview of NATO's history, the key articles in its treaty, and the ongoing debate surrounding its relevance post-Cold War, ultimately concluding its continued importance in current foreign policy.
International policy enthusiasts
Detailed analysis of the potential future challenges that may impact NATO's relevance and effectiveness.
#NATO #ForeignPolicy #CollectiveDefense #InternationalRelations #History
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today we're going to talk about NATO.
We're going to go over the treaty.
We're going to talk about what's in the treaty, what the articles mean, and we're going to
give a brief overview of how it started.
And then we're going to talk about a talking point and something that is coming up now,
and it represents something that occurs a lot in foreign policy.
Okay so how did NATO start?
It started back in 1949.
There were two real motivating reasons.
One is the Soviet Union.
It's out there, and Western nations were worried about fighting it.
They wanted to provide a united front.
The other aspect of this and the reason the United States really pushed it is because
the U.S. was overextended.
At the end of World War II, we had troops everywhere, and we wanted to make sure that
we weren't in the situation of being responsible for the totality of everybody's defense.
So we wanted to bring member nations on board, set up a council, and make sure that everybody
was on the same page.
That's what NATO was for.
It's a collective defense pact, but there's a little bit more to it in the articles, and
we're going to go over all of that.
Okay, so that's how it started.
The treaty itself has 14 articles, and we're going to provide quick summaries of each one
of the articles.
Article 1, you are to try to resolve any disputes with other member nations peacefully, and
you are to never threaten force.
Article 2, you will try to eliminate conflict in economic policies.
So each nation is going to try to make sure their economic policies align.
They're going to try to cooperate economically.
Back when this came about, nobody was really certain how well the Soviet Union would do
economically, and the Western nations wanted to make sure that they were operating together
as well because they wanted to counter that block.
Article 3, each member nation will develop collective and individual ability when it
comes to fending off an attack.
So everybody's going to build up their military, and the militaries will cooperate with each
other.
Article 4, if you perceive a threat, if your nation perceives that there's going to be
an attack, you talk to the other members of NATO.
That seems like it should be common sense.
Article 5, this is the big one.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
If somebody launches an attack against a NATO nation, they are launching an attack against
every member of NATO.
That is the real important part of the treaty militarily.
Interestingly enough, Article 5 was never invoked during the Cold War.
Article 6, it goes on to clarify that an attack on aircraft or boats or whatever constitutes
an attack on the nation.
So an attack on everybody.
Let's see, Article 7, the UN is still top dog.
That's really what it's saying.
It sought to make clear that NATO was secondary to the United Nations.
And then when it comes to resolving international disputes that might become military disputes,
the UN Security Council, that's where everything happens.
NATO is secondary to that.
They didn't want to undermine the UN.
Article 8 basically says by signing this treaty, our nation doesn't have any treaties that
conflict with what's in this treaty, whether it be with another member of NATO or an outside
country.
Article 9 establishes a council.
This council can set up subcommittees, subcouncils, whatever.
The real purpose of these councils is to kind of deal with Articles 3 through 5.
Make sure that everybody is developing collective and individual abilities to fend off an attack.
Make sure people are coordinating and talking.
And if need be, coordinate a response if a member of NATO is attacked.
Article 10, member nations may invite any other European state to join.
And that country that gets invited, they become a member after a unanimous vote.
Article 11 is just a legal thing saying, hey, we're signing this treaty now, but it has
to be ratified by the laws in each member state's home country.
So it has to follow the constitution of each country.
Article 12 says that there's going to be a 10-year review.
Every 10 years, the treaty will be reviewed if somebody requests it.
Article 13 says that once you join, after 20 years, if you want to leave, you can if
you provide a year's notice.
And then Article 14 just says that both the French and English versions are real.
So that's the treaty.
It's not a complex thing.
It's pretty simple.
Now with all of the talk about NATO recently, a talking point is surfacing.
What good is it?
Why does NATO still exist?
The Soviet Union is gone.
And yeah, that makes sense, kind of.
That talking point first emerged in the early 90s, after the end of the Cold War.
People were like, do we really need this?
And at the time, no, we didn't.
But nobody believed that then when the talking point first started getting circulated.
This is something that happens in foreign policy a lot.
An idea gets floated and it takes a while to take hold.
So there was a movement to kind of get out of NATO, but it didn't go anywhere.
There was a movement to just get rid of it, but it never really picked up any steam.
And then in September of 2001, something happened and Article 5 got invoked.
And then for a while, nobody was talking about it because people realized, hey, well, maybe
NATO is still kind of important to the United States and foreign policy in general of these
countries.
And now that talking point is coming back.
Do we really need NATO?
Now this happens a lot.
An idea gets floated.
And when it gets floated, it makes sense.
The Cold War is over.
Why do we still need this?
But by the time people get ready to act on it, the situation has changed so much that
you're kind of back to where you started.
Now that the United States is definitely committed to countering near peers, Russia and China,
NATO is as important as it was during the Cold War.
And that talking point is still out there because people have said it for so long and
it gained popularity with people that politicians continue to repeat it even though the foreign
policy scene has changed a whole lot.
Now to be clear, this is one of those videos where we're talking about what is, not what
should be.
Organizations like NATO, like Warsaw Pact, any permanent military alliance is generally
not a great thing.
But as foreign policy stands today with the United States, it's probably still pretty
necessary.
So anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}