The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is abysmal. Here is a reflection of how collective international organizations may serve to do more harm than good. Recent bombings by NATO forces on Pakistani soldiers for two hours (follow link with title) is a clear reflection of this boundless and boundary-less force. At the discretion of a majority, NATO was capable of taking up arms and violating sovereign space as they please...killing innocent citizens in the meantime. Neglect of these boundaries is comparable to property right violations and should be denounced by the US and other free nations. Further, the US should lead the way toward the disenfranchisement of this increasingly dangerous organization.
The problem with large multinational political organizations like NATO is the inability to achieve absolute collective goals. When the issue at hand is taking lives, the issue is ALWAYS absolute. With many variables existing at the individual to individual level, how is this expected to work when a collective group of countries must all come together and work toward the same goal? If collectivism is difficult to handle at the basal level, then handling it at a larger level would become extremely difficult. What additional benefit does NATO offer that each country cannot handle on its own? Perhaps its the small voice, calling out for collective retaliation if they are invaded. In this case, are the more powerful countries like the US not likely to respond to unjustified invasion? The ultimate decision then would come down to self-interest and national security on a country by country basis. If countries acted out according to their own country's interest then they are less likely to be drawn into a conflict under a nationless organization that is supposedly serving everybody's interest and their resources can be used for more viable causes.
Posts
I think NATO is becoming a moot organization in most current nationalist situations due to the rise of enhanced communication and knowledge of the common citizen. Individuals of particular countries have now taken it upon themselves to voice and act on what they believe is the most beneficial path for their nation, as shown in recent revolutions. Because of these changing conditions, NATO is becoming less and less needed. NATO was primarily created to act as a counterpoint to a rogue country or regime that sought to harm or endanger other sovereignties. But now they have begun to act as their own entity, outside of the interests of the individual countries it represents. This is where the danger lies. I'm curious Erasmus...if a certain country is clearly a threat to the safety and basic human rights of its neighbors, is it this country's moral duty to reverse its standpoint on its own? Seems tough, especially when sometimes the agenda of a few with all power, differs from the agenda of the common citizen.
ReplyDeleteIf country A is a clear threat to safety and basic human rights of country B, then is country A morally responsible to reverse its standpoint from its original position...is this correct? Idealistically, under a system of capitalism, not the mixed-economy system we have today, there is no reason for invading another country if they too adhere to capitalistic principles and respect individual rights. Humans deal with other humans based upon the product or service that the other provides. Strength is determined by innovation and productivity rather than power. Unfortunately much of humankind is driven by power. If country A decides to violate country B based on some imperialistic principle of enhancing the motherland or religious ideal, their moral duty has already been decided. The decision is to not uphold individual rights and capitalism. If you are asking if I think it is the country's moral duty is to reverse its standpoint...my answer, as an individual rights advocate, is yes. If they want to associate or trade with me, then it is in their best interest to stop their individual rights violations. However, an entire country probably could care less to deal with one man alone. Luckily, I live in a country that shares my views on individual rights and represents me as best as possible. I hold my country's representative responsible for adhering to these rights. My answer is not one of Country A's moral responsibilities against itself, only the moral responsibilities of my own country. If Country A wishes to deal with my country, then they must not use unnecessary force against Country B.
ReplyDelete