 Doubts about the future of NATO
In an interview with The Economist on 7 November 2019 Emmanuel Macron declared: “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO. Europe is standing on the edge of a precipice.” Macron’s harsh comment may be seen as a wake-up call to the rest of Europe. Europe must begin to think of itself as a geopolitical power, or it will “no longer be in control of its own destiny” In Macron‘s view Trump’s America was turning its back on Europe, and acting without regard to its European allies, not the least in relation Trumps’ troop withdrawals in Syria. Macron saw a toxic mix brewing with America turning its back on Europe at the same time as Europe was confronted by the rise of China and by the increasingly authoritarian regimes in Russia and Turkey. A Europe weakened by Brexit and political instability. Turkey as member of NATO engaged in activities that could hardly be seen as being in compatible with NATO’s purpose. Macron argued that Europe should gain “military sovereignty” and open a dialogue with Russia. Failing to do so would be a great mistake. In a NATO meeting few days later Trump burst out that Macrons’ characterisation of NATO as brain dead was insulting and a “very, very nasty statement.” Seemingly forgetting his own criticism of NATO a few years back when he said that NATO was outdated and costing the United States too much money, suggesting it might be replaced with an alternative organization focused on counterterrorism and repeatedly using the word “obsolete.” In the light of the doubts expressed about the future of NATO and its possible role it is perhaps no wonder that the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, commissioned a group with task of analysing present and future challenges to NATO and presenting recommendations for political strategies meeting existing and future challenges. On 25 November 2002 NATO published “NATO 2030: United for New Era,” containing the analysis and recommendations of the reflection group appointed by Secretary General. The group had been tasked with the vague worded task of providing recommendations in three areas. 1) Reinforcing Allied unity, solidarity, and cohesion, including to cement the centrality of the transatlantic bond; 2) Increasing political consultation and coordination between Allies in NATO; and 3) Strengthening NATO’s political role and relevant instruments to address current and future threats and challenges to Alliance security emanating from all strategic directions. This essay casts a critical look at the work of the reflection group and discuss the real challenges overlooked by the reflection group under these headings: Nato’s original purpose Critical discussion of the sanguine views of the reflection group Overlooked challenges and threats to NATO and the West - Internal strife among NATO’s members - The growing Iran problem, and indirectly North Korea - The African problem - Competing world views The crumbling West The real challenge to NATO and the West Nato’s original purpose Before looking at the analysis and recommendations of the group, it may be relevant to remember NATO’s original purpose The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on 4 April, 1949, by 12 founding Members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Treaty had the broad triple purpose of “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.” (A short history of NATO). This broader purpose is reflected in the preamble of the Treaty and in article 2 of the treaty: In the preamble the parties to the treaty “are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.” Article 2 expands on the political and non-military purpose of NATO. “The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.” The narrower but important principle of collective defence against armed aggression is codified in the Treaty’s often quoted musketeer’s oath of one for all and all for one, found in article 5 (and 6). Article 5. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” During the Cold War the NATO alliance would seem to have fulfilled its threefold purpose of deterring the Soviet Union, preventing nationalistic revival in the West, and furthering economic cooperation and wellbeing. All to be sure under US dominance. After the Cold War the purpose and strategies became less clear and there was even talk of NATO’s demise, but according to sanguine look found in the NATO-2030 analysis the alliance continued to be a success: “In the thirty years since the collapse of the Soviet threat that called NATO into existence, the Western Alliance has defied innumerable predictions of its imminent demise. It ended two wars and ethnic cleansing in the Western Balkans, extended the hand of partnership to Russia and other former adversaries, stepped up to the threat of terrorism directed against NATO territory, engaged abroad including in Afghanistan, and responded with clarity, unity, and resolve to the threat posed by Russian aggression in the Euro-Atlantic region.” (NATO-2030). Others may see the ending of the Balkan wars as being the result of rather heavy-handed US involvement. The hand of friendship to Russia as being met with the clenched fist of rearmament and aggression in areas where NATO wouldn’t’ want to be involved. Involvement in the war against terror in Afghanistan was actually the first real call to arms under article 5, but after almost 20 years involvement it is difficult to see this involvement as an unqualified success. Characterising NATO’s last thirty years as being marked by clarity, unity and resolve sounds almost ridiculous. Reality would seem to be almost the opposite. Characterised by the lack of a clear purpose, pushed about by unforeseen upheavals and radical changes in the World. Plagued by a lack of overall unity, with divergence along the allies, not the least in relation to the ally Turkey, but also in relation to Russia and the Europe-US relation. Resolve? Yes, in immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, but later resolve was more in name than in action. Thus giving credence to the Macron’s “brain dead” accusation and Trump’s “obsolete” outburst. Critical discussion of the sanguine views of the reflection group The reflection group behind NATO-2030 finds a long list existing and foreseeable future challenges and threats. Russia “In the Euro-Atlantic area, the most profound geopolitical challenge is posed by Russia. While Russia is by economic and social measures a declining power, it has proven itself capable of territorial aggression and is likely to remain a chief threat facing NATO over the coming decade. Russia maintains a powerful conventional military and robust nuclear arsenal that poses a threat across NATO territory, but is particularly acute on the eastern flank. ...Russia also threatens NATO in non-kinetic domains in ways that blur the lines between war and peace.” (NATO-2030). In the somewhat Eurocentric view of the reflection group, Russia is still seen as the dominant threat to the West. so nothing really new here. The group refers to Russia’s aggressive stance, its military build-up, and its use of hybrid warfare. “While Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia continues, assertive Russian behaviour has intensified in the High North and North Atlantic, with air and naval build ups in and around key maritime chokepoints in the Barents, Baltic, and Black seas, and the Mediterranean. In the last three of these, Russia has placed anti-access/area-denial (A2AD) capabilities, expanded hybrid warfare, and threatened energy and critical infrastructure. In parallel, it has attempted to create satellite or client states near NATO territory, including so-called frozen conflicts, and violated arms-control regimes leading to the end of the INF Treaty. Russia has also been trying to establish a foothold in the Mediterranean basin and in Africa, including by using proxies and Russian private military companies. In addition to its conventional military threat, Russia is deploying a broader hybrid toolkit including offensive cyber, state-sanctioned assassinations, and poisonings – using chemical weapons, political coercion, and other methods to violate the sovereignty of Allies” (NATO-2030). The group seems to have overlooked Russia’s activities in the Middle East in relation to Iran and Syria. Even more threatening to the doctrine of collective defence may be Russia’s involvement with Turkey, a NATO ally. With Turkey now buying sophisticated equipment like the S-400 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia, and Turkey and Russia apparently acting together in areas like the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. And not to be forgotten. What about the future threat of Russia-Chinese cooperation? The reflection group really doesn’t have any new ideas of how to cope with the potential Russian threats. They in fact recommend the continuation of the age-old dual-track approach of deterrence and dialogue. Neither of which really seems to have worked very well in relation to Russian activities in the recent years. “The Alliance should consider a dynamic template under which it takes steps to raise the costs for Russian aggression (e.g., coordinating to tighten rather than merely renew sanctions, according to Russian behaviour, exposing the facts of Russian covert activities in Ukraine, etc.) while at the same time supporting increased political outreach to negotiate arms control and risk reduction measures.” (NATO-2030). Nothing really new and nothing that seems to have worked very well in the recent years. The carrot and stick approach is further weakened by bickering among the NATO Allies. The analyses and recommendations in “NATO-2030” present neither a complete overview of the challenges, nor do they present new answers to Russian challenges. Instead, we find wishful thinking and unfounded hopes based to upon an approach that hasn’t worked. What could be done instead? Perhaps it the best way to meet the challenges from Russia would be to accept that Russia remains in the Crimea, that part of Eastern Ukraine may become as semi-independent state after a referendum. Make Russia an offer of economic investments and trade that it would be stupid to refuse. In return it must blunt its petulant aggressive stance, reduce activities in the Middle East that might indirectly threaten NATO, and assist in countering rogue regimes’ nuclear and missile threats.Russia should be allowed to emerge from the freezer, because it seems foolish to make Russia such a big threat as it is at the moment. The problem is rather that the NATO is currently so divided and indecisive that it is in fact a danger to itself. A danger that even a weak Russia can exploit. Macron and Trump have both spoken in favour of a better relationship with Russia. The EU should have even greater interest in a good relationship with Russia. In the medium and long term, the threat to NATO and the West will not come from Russia, but from a self-conscious and very strong China, a troubled Middle East, and a perhaps completely ungovernable Africa with a huge population surplus. Sooner or later the West may find that Russia will have to become an essential partner for the West in what may very soon become a hegemonic struggle in a bi-polar world of Chinese hegemony against Western hegemony. China, the real dragon in room “The scale of Chinese power and global reach poses acute challenges to open and democratic societies, particularly because of that country’s trajectory to greater authoritarianism and an expansion of its territorial ambitions. For most Allies, China is both an economic competitor and significant trade partner. China is therefore best understood as a full-spectrum systemic rival, rather than a purely economic player or an only Asia-focused security actor. While China does not pose an immediate military threat to the Euro-Atlantic area on the scale of Russia, it is expanding its military reach into the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Arctic, deepening defence ties with Russia, and developing long-range missiles and aircraft, aircraft carriers, and nuclear-attack submarines with global reach, extensive space-based capabilities, and a larger nuclear arsenal. NATO Allies feel China’s influence more and more in every domain. Its Belt and Road, Polar Silk Road, and Cyber Silk Road have extended rapidly, and it is acquiring infrastructure across Europe with a potential bearing upon communications and interoperability.” (NATO 2030). Somewhat strange to read that “China does not pose an immediate military threat to the Euro-Atlantic area on the scale of Russia.” Apparently forgetting that the absolutely dominant player in NATO, the US, is already much more concerned with the Chinese threat than the Russian, but perhaps the reflection group didn’t see what was happening to what Europeans may consider to be the backside of the US, the brewing conflict in Pacific and the Far East. The US Defence Secretary has summarised the main focus for US defence in three words: "China, China, China." How does the reflection group propose to counter the challenges represented by China? The answer would seem to be with a barrage of suggestions containing wishful thinking and unfounded hopes. The report first argues that “NATO should enhance its ability to coordinate strategy and safeguard Allies’ security vis-à-vis China.” Yes, and how should that be accomplished? “NATO must devote much more time, political resources and action to the security challenges posed by China – based on an assessment of its national capabilities, economic heft, and the stated ideological goals of its leaders. It needs to develop a political strategy for approaching a world in which China will be of growing importance through to 2030.” More specifically this would have to include: Increase information-sharing analysis on China within the Alliance; Continue efforts to build resilience and counter cyberattacks and disinformation that originate in China; Expand efforts to assess the implications for Allies’ security of China’s technology capability development; Invest in its ability to monitor and defend against any Chinese activities that could impact collective defence, military readiness and/or resilience in SACEUR’s Area of Responsibility; Continue to identify vulnerabilities of key sectors and supply chains, in coordination with the EU; Uphold NATO cohesion when Allies engage China bilaterally and through formats such as the 17+1 format and Belt Road Initiative; Adapt to China’s integrated MCF doctrine by encouraging Allies to increase technological and military engagement with Allies more vulnerable to Chinese penetration. Just as in the case of Russia the reflection group further argues that NATO should keep open the prospect of a political dialogue with China, including “considering establishing a de-confliction mechanism at the military level, should China’s role in the Euro-Atlantic area warrant it.” NATO should also make it clear that is has no quarrel with the Chinese people, and that NATO’s action would always be defensive in nature. In the NATO 2030 report there is not much of an analysis of the China challenges. More a listing of the more obvious concerns that have popped up in the recent years. What is missing is the recognition of the deep challenges that already undermine the West’s ability to react to the more obvious concerns. In other essays we have tried to identify at some of these challenges. Here just a few points: Trade in goods, the split in the West China has become the manufacturing house of the West, producing and exporting a very important share of the goods consumed in the West. Most recently this dependence was demonstrated in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, where the West was dependent on Chinese Delivery of personal protective equipment (or PPE) to be used against the virus. The overall dependence is reflected for instance in in the enormous US-China trade deficit, a major bone of contention for President Trump in relation to China. China has become the EU’s largest trading partner, and the EU is likewise China's largest trading partner, but the partnership is unequal, with EU also showing a large deficit in trade with China. While Trump saw the trade deficit as threat to the US, the EU has been surprisingly meek in its response. “The EU should robustly seek more balanced and reciprocal conditions governing the economic relationship.” (EU-China – A strategic outlook 2019). The meekness surely being a result of unequal position of the member states, with Germany not interested in doing anything that may threaten its large export to China. Under these conditions it is extremely difficult to see how the West will possess the shared will and necessary clout to impress China. BRI – Expanding China’s geopolitical influence China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It is no longer just a modern silk road initiative. It has mutated into a global initiative encompassing Africa and Latin America. Pushing back European and US influence in regions they regarded as their own backyards. Even creating divergences among European countries. Not the least in relation to the China led 17 +1 initiative with 12 EU-states and 5 Balkan states participating. The initiative is focusing on infrastructure projects such as bridges, motorways, railway lines and modernisation of ports in the member states. This means that China is having a growing influence in Europe, buying its way in through the eastern and southern backdoor of Europe (somehow reminding one of European expansionism in China in former times). Meaning also that it is to be expected that there will no concerted efforts to counter China’s growing influence in Europe. China’s growing technological and scientific clout According to a science report from UNESCO "China will outpace the USA as the world’s leading R&D spender by around 2019, reaching another important milestone in its endeavour to become an innovation-oriented nation by 2020." (UNESCO science report: towards 2030). A report from the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing alleges that China pursues a focused and aggressive economic, technical and scientific policy with the aim to “Capture the Emerging High-Technology Industries That Will Drive Future Economic Growth and Many Advancements in the Defense Industry.” Further cause for worry in the West may be found in an evaluation of USA's "National Security Strategy," which asserts that "Part of China’s military modernization and economic expansion is due to its access to the U.S. innovation economy, including America’s world-class universities." China aims for world dominance in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and quantum computing, and at the very least the race is on, with Europe playing a rather insignificant role. These and other challenges already have such a size that the recommendations of the reflection groups look woefully inadequate and slightly ridiculously. They certainly do not represent an adequate answer to these already existing challenges or any ideas for how to contain and counter Chinese influence and hegemonic aspiration during the next ten years. Later we shall see how Western strength and resolve is further weakened by internal problems. The fast growing military clout In the annual report to Congress the office of the Secretary of Defense demonstrates that China has achieved parity with or exceeded the US in important military areas: –Shipbuilding: The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020. China is the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage and is increasing its shipbuilding capacity and capability for all naval classes. – Land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles: The PRC has developed its conventional missile forces unrestrained by any international agreements. The PRC has more than 1,250 ground-launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs. – Integrated air defense systems: The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems—including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically produced systems—that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense system (IADS) architecture. Xi Jinping: "We have reached a new historical starting point in strengthening national defense and the armed forces. Confronted with profound changes in our national security environment and responding to the demands of the day for a strong country with a strong military.” (19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, 2017). The ambition is that China by 2050 will have returned to its rightful status after bowing to the demands of Western powers for over a century. Achieving a goal in which "China will continue to grow and China will be so developed in all aspects that it will be truly a superpower." (Xi Linping). To get an idea of what this might mean we may have a look at the white paper "China’s National Defense in the New Era" published in July 2019. The white paper presents a view of the World in which international security "is undermined by growing hegemonism, power politics, unilateralism and constant regional conflicts and wars." The US and the NATO are causing tensions to rise. The US "has provoked and intensified competition among major countries, significantly increased its defense expenditure, pushed for additional capacity in nuclear, outer space, cyber and missile defense, and undermined global strategic stability. " While NATO "has stepped up military deployment in Central and Eastern Europe, and conducted frequent military exercises." The US is accused of undermining the security of the Asia-Pacific region by strengthening "its Asia-Pacific military alliances and reinforcing military deployment and intervention." This short look at China’s aggressive push to become a world power, equal to or surpassing the West, should demonstrate that the recommendation with regard to China found in the reflection group’s contribution to “NATO-2030” are woefully inadequate and bordering on the ridiculous. The remaining challenges seen by the reflection group The NATO-2030 report sees a host of further challenges to NATO: Emerging and disruptive technologies (EDT) Terrorism The South Arms control and nuclear deterrence Energy security Climate and green defence Human security and women, peace and security Pandemic and natural disasters Hybrid and cyber threats Outer space Strategic communication, public diplomacy and tackling disinformation Strengthening NATO’s political cohesion and unity Strengthening NATO’s pollical consultation and decision-making Political consultation with the European Union Partnerships in North, East, and South, furthermore Indo-Pacific and Asian partnerships At the end we find challenges related to NATO itself Political decision-making, containing the admonition “NATO must be diligent in ensuring that it remains capable of reaching and implementing decisions in a timely fashion. NATO can and does act swiftly as it showed in response to the Salisbury poisoning. Yet recent years have also seen a rise in the incidence of single-country blockages.” If the reaction to the Salisbury poisoning is the best example of united timely reaction, not much is to be expected, as the reaction doesn’t to have impressed the recipient, but perhaps the reaction was directed more to NATO itself, allowing it to show some kind of unity if only for a rather weak response With regard to “Political structure, staffing and resources” it is recommended that NATO consider increasing the delegated authorities of the Secretary General. Overlooked challenges and threats to NATO and the West The reflection group behind the NATO-2030 report has overlooked existing major issues and potential threats to NATO’s broader purpose. Internal strife among NATO’s members The growing Iran problem, and indirectly North Korea The African problem Competing world views “Divided we stand” Instead of united efforts for collective defence and the preservation of peace and security, NATO today seem to more accurately characterised by a “divided we stand” dis-unity. Two major challenges haven’t really made their way into the NATO-2030 Report. NATO’s Turkey problem, the still very weak contribution to NATO by most European members that continue to annoy the US, and perhaps giving it cause to turn its back on Europe. In addition there is the lacklustre European engagement in relation to the problems in the Middle East. NATO’s Turkey problems Somewhat strange the reflection group does not take up of the burning issue of Turkey. For some reason the group imply ignores NATO’s Turkey problem or problems for there is a whole lot. Incidents in the Mediterranean. In June 2002 the French Frigate Courbet, was trying to inspect a ship suspected of involvement in arms trafficking with Libya, as part NATO mission “Sea Guardian.” When the French frigate was trying to approach the freighter, a Turkish frigate interfered and illuminated the French Frigate three times with its fire control radar. An unusual and threatening move, causing the French to abandon the inspection. A Greek naval frigate had a similar experience when using a helicopter to inspect a freighter bound for Libya. Turkey, the NATO member is in fact making it impossible for NATO to carry out its shared mission. And nothing happens, apart from France pulling out of the shared mission. Then we have Turkey’s oil and gas exploration with incursion into waters claimed by Greece and Cyprus. Giving rise to renewed animosity between the NATO partners. An EU-Summit in December2020 finally decided to add new names of individuals and companies to the blacklist that currently exists for Turkey’s “unauthorised” gas drillings off Cyprus. Further sanctions were apparently blocked by Chancellor Merkel and others. Then we have Turkey collaborating with Russia. Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems, brought it into confrontation with the US. In December 2020 the US announced that it imposed sanctions on Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB) for procuring the S-400 surface-to-air missile system.(state.gov) https://www.state.gov/caatsa-section-231-imposition-of-sanctions-on-turkish-presidency-of-defense-industries/ Further disagreement broke out when Turkey decided to invade Northern Syria, threatening the Kurds who had been staunch allies in the fight against Daesh.” Most North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies swiftly condemned the Turkish offensive against Western-backed Kurdish militants in northern Syria, with some moving to punish Turkey” (WSJ). Finally in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Turkey became involved on the side of Azerbaijan. NATO security without really contributing This refers to the long standing problem of Europe not contributing its share to its own protection. Resting contently under the US military umbrella with its overwhelming nuclear options. Not the least Germany is seen as a culprit. A somewhat bizarre situation in which an almost cynical Germany lets the United States pay for its security, while at the same time building up a colossal trade surplus with the United States. Brilliant as long as it goes well but it may not do so anymore. Trump has insisted that Europe should at least contribute the more or less agreed 2% share of their GDP, but Europe has been reluctant to really get involved, while Trump has made threats and announced plan for reduction and redeployment of US forces in Europe. With Biden becoming President in the US, Europe seems to be hoping to continue the old arrangement of the US paying for the security of Europe. The growing Iran Problem There is a strange European complacency with regard to Iran. When the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was agreed between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) in 2015, there was a feeling that the threat of Iran getting the bomb was contained, at least for a while. After Trump’s one-sided withdrawal from the agreement, Iran has again threatened the West with further enrichment, and also been engaged in building long ranging missiles. In November 2020 the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) could report that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium had become 12 times as large as allowed under the agreement. In December 2020 Iran announced that under a new law Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency would be allowed resume enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent immediately. It is increasingly difficult to understand the complacency shown by the European members of NATO. If Iran ware to become a power with say nuclear and missile capabilities equivalent to North Korea, the whole of Europe would be subject to nuclear blackmail, and then what? Would European NATO partners accept to live under this threat, with seemingly radical clerics in command in Iran. The North Korean Problem While North Korea may seem geographically far off to most NATO members it would seem to represent a rather pressing problem for the US, perhaps showing what the European members might be in for, if and when Iran becomes rogue nuclear state. That these threats are not really taking up in the reflection group’s analysis in the NATO-2030 Report would seem to disqualify it as document helping to define NATO strategy and tasks towards 2030. The African problem In 2050 World population is projected to be around 9.7 billion, with the West (mainly North America and Europe) making up a small fraction. The population of Europe is forecast to reach 710 million in 2050 with a growth rate of -0.26%, while North America is forecast to reach a population of 425 million with a growth rate of 0.34%. Thus, the population of West would stand at around than 1.14 billion in 2050. Around 12% of the world population. China would be expected to stagnate at around the size it has now, 1.4 billion, India to grow to 1.6 billion, while Africa would reach a phenomenal 2.5 billion people, or more than 25% of the world population. Projections for Africa in the 2100 reach more than 4 billion, with the majority found in the Sub Saharan Africa. It is evident that the population of the West, and thus the major part of the "White World," will only make up a tiny part of the World's population in 2050. A very small West compared to an overwhelming and still growing Rest. What's more, the major part of the West is aging. Data from "Statista" show that Europe has 17 % over 65, North America around 15 % while Africa only has 4%, and Asia 8%. We have already seen an out of Africa migration directed towards Europe. Climate changes may increase the pressure on Europe. Meaning that NATO might have to take a closer look at threat of a potentail migration pressure from Africa, that would overwhelm the southern members of NATO. Not much is found about these problems in the NATO-2030 report. There are mentions and suggestions for engaging more with African political organisations, but no real ideas as to scale of the problems or anything approaching realistic proposals for how to handle the implicit threat to the purposes that NATO strives to achieve: Safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples and promoting stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. Competing world views A West intoxicated by its own success has had a belief in freedom, democracy and the "rule of law" as universal values. Its values have inspired the opposition in those parts of the world where they were not valid. But attempts to realize them in non-Western countries have often proven to be difficult. Not least China has shown a different path to economic success and increased prosperity, meaning that basic Western values such as freedom, democracy and the "rule of law" may no longer be seen as a prerequisite for economic growth and technological development. Increasingly, we are also seeing how international organizations are characterized by attitudes and values that are incompatible with Western interests, attitudes and values. In a lecture for "The German Marshall Fund," which at least in some circles attracted a great deal of attention, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dealt with precisely this aspect. After the war, the United States supported new institutions whose purpose was to help maintain peace and security internationally. "We underwrote new institutions to rebuild Europe and Japan, to stabilize currencies, and to facilitate trade. We all co-founded NATO to guarantee security for ourselves and our allies. We entered into treaties to codify Western values of freedom and human rights. " After the end of the Cold War "we allowed this liberal order to begin to corrode ... Multilateralism has too often been viewed as an end unto itself." But multilateralism has increasingly led to multilateral organizations in which Western interests and values are in minority. We see this, for example in UN organisations. Not the least the UN's Human Rights Council, where Western values can hardly be said to dominate with current memberships including China, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo etc. Hardly countries that will readily promote Western perceptions of human rights. The crumbling West Although the glaring omissions of the NATO reflection group with regard to external challenges to NATO and the West are serious enough to disqualify the report, it is perhaps even more serious that the group has omitted almost any discussion of the internal challenges to the Western hegemony. The West seem to have lost the ability to believe in its own values, and aspirations Perhaps we now see the beginning of an "Untergang des Abendlandes," in the sense that the West is increasingly weakened. Not only by violent external shifts, but also by an increasing degree of internal weaknesses and divisions. This applies to the disagreement in the West between the United States and Europe, this applies to the weakening of Europe with Brexit, but also internal rifts, such as the division in the United States between Democrats and Republicans, political upheaval in Europe with protest movements and parties. Losing faith in Democracy in the West, standing by authoritarian institutions in the East People in the West are losing faith in the model that has been the foundation for progress in the West. Surveys published in 2014 and 2018 show that young people in the West have a rather pessimistic outlook on their own future compared to young people from other parts of the world, where especially young people from China, Brazil, Turkey and India have a positive outlook on their own future. (Ipsos moris). The 2018 survey found that 94.1 % of Chinese youth were optimistic about their future, while for instance only 65.3 % of young Swedes were optimistic about their future. A "World Values Survey" study shows that in the West there is a generational gap when it comes to confidence in liberal democracy. Younger generations no longer consider it important to live in a democracy. Where older generations regard a democratic order of society as vitally important, only 30-40 percent of the youngest generation considers it important to live in a democracy. Perhaps surprising but in China surveys has consistently found a high level of support for the political system. A "World Values Survey" looking at trust in political institutions found that 64 % of the Chinese people trusted the key political institutions, higher than in the US, with a 56 % trust in key institutions, while in Russia trust was only 42%. It must be said though that this survey is from 2000. While one might argue that people in China may hide their true convictions for fear of retribution, it is remarkable that the value for trust is so much higher than in Russia where people may have the same fear. Even so there may be signs that trust is declining, seeing that China " has grown increasingly reliant on a new set of instruments, the most prominent among which are pragmatist policies aimed at maintaining high economic growth and improving people’s livelihoods, appeals to Chinese nationalism, and selective repression." (cfr.com). One may also see the lobotimization of the possibilities for expressing public opinion, and attempts to create detailed individual surveillance and social control mechanisms as evidence of a regime reminding one of an Orwellian "1984" state. Cultural relativism in West, cultural supremacy in the East The West is surrendering to an unfortunate cultural relativism. People who think in these terms do not see that invisible, but crucially important and mutually supportive values and norms that uphold our culture, democracy and society are eroded away. Do not see that they themselves are guilty of causing this erosion. They make silly excuses for not putting our values and our culture above other value systems or above religious requirements that are formulated differently from our values. They forget that values exist only by living them, not by idiotic re-collections in a culture canon. As if this anchors culture in anything. On the contrary, a culture cannon is a sign of the erosion and dissolution, and a cannon cannot save it. We can only save our culture by living it and insisting on its values. And I am increasing doubting that we will and dare do that in the West. "Values built up and maintained within the Culture begin to fall away." Isn't that exactly what's happening right now? No so in China, where we find a deep-rooted belief in their own superiority in relation to the everyone else, at least according to the experience of foreigners in China: "[W]hat we would consider racism in the West is simply a deeply ingrained cultural characteristic of mainland Chinese people. White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Dark skin or not being Han means a person is inferior (and more likely to be a bad guy/a thief/incompetent etc.)." (The Atlantic). What one has to remember is that although there are a number of minorities in China, more 92% of population see themselves as belonging to be the homogenous ethnic group of Han Chinese. As Hobsbawm has noted China is one of "the extremely rare examples of historic states composed of a population that is ethnically almost or entirely homogeneous." Well, then there are of course the problems with the minority of the Muslim Uighurs in the Western province of Xinjiang. According to The Council on Foreign Relations China has detained more than million Uighurs in re-education camps. While this has led outburst in the West, it would seem that Han Chinese don't have a problem with that, perhaps again marking the belief in their own cultural superiority. The Wests’ mostly verbal criticism of China’s treatment of Uighurs seems strangely misguided, as it doesn’t seem that Muslim countries have the same qualms with regard to China’s treatment of Muslims. Muslim countries have simply shied away from supporting the Uighurs. Perhaps we should do the same and leave China’s internal problems with the Uighurs by the side and concentrate on challenges to our own way of living. Deepening fault lines in the West Large parts of the western world may be likened to an expanding donut, where an increasingly diverse and loud periphery runs with all the attention, not paying attention to the hollowing out of the centre. The expansion is so powerful that the periphery is split into countless, incoherent bits of identity groups. This picture illustrates a community that is disintegrating. In all sorts of identity and special interest groups. Noisy, loud-mouthed, wildly gesticulating groups of focused opinions that all seek maximum attention, regardless of the consequences for the rest of society. We see growing political radicalism, the Black Lives Matters movements, Cancel Culture movements, Fridays for Future protests, radical Islamism trumping shared western values gender delusions, and attempts to topple our own history and quell free speech. This preoccupation with one's own group identity and group self-assertion has led to a loss of a shared vision, destiny and community itself as a Gemeinschaft. The focus is on what separates the different identities and not on what is shared. It is the I that matters, not the We. "Today, in the wake of decades of group identity politics and the attendant deconstruction of our heritage through academia, the media, and popular culture, this conviction in the uniqueness of the West is only a pale shadow of what it was a mere half century ago. It has been replaced by elite narratives substituting shame for pride and indifference to one's own heritage for patriotism ... Western societies have changed in ways that make social mobilization around the shared idea of a nation increasingly problematic. This ideological hollowing out of the West has been accompanied by a surge in confident revanchist nationalisms in other parts of the world, as well as religiously inspired totalitarianism. (Micha). " The real challenge to NATO and the West The US may still be the only real World power, but its military power is increasing being challenged, not only by China but also Russia, forcing the US to enormous defence expenditures to maintain superiority. Europe meanwhile is hiding under the mighty umbrella of US military power, contributing very little to the power struggle with China and Russia. All the while talking grandly about peace based upon multilateralism and the rule of law. As if this isn't in the end based upon the power to uphold these grand ideas. While there is no question of a rejuvenated and self-conscious and growing Chinese hegemony, there are the signs of internal decline of the West that doesn't bode well for upholding existing Western hegemony. To counter rise of an increasingly powerful China believing in its own superiority, and to avoid an "Untergang des Westen" scenario, there must be a rejuvenated Western drive, a will to power, and a conviction in the validity of ideas and values of the West. Instead of giving in to defeatism and value relativism that cripples the ability to decide and to act. To be really heretical: A re-vitalization of the belief in the superiority of the ideas and values that shaped the West. |
