NATO in a changing world (Kelsey Hunter, Week 3 Dialog)

The Kay piece on Neoliberal Institutionalism reminded me of another IR course I took, International Organization. The class was very closely related to IR 105 in that it used the different theories- Realism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, etc. to explain the organization of the international system and the existence of the UN, NATO, the WTO, and other regimes as well as institutions.

Our discussion of NATO in that course is what I was reminded of as I read the Kay piece. Toward the end of the article Kay posits that NATO should become a peace-keeping organization or take on a new role, since it no longer makes sense as a military and security alliance. The situation in Kosovo and NATO's reaction clearly exposed the flaws and failures of NATO as a purely military tool. As pointed out in Kay's article, even before and during the Kosovo war, NATO was attempting to change their mission to reflect a new role, to "stand firm against those who violate human rights, wage war, and conquer territory" (page 64). Morphing completely into a new role doesn't seem that far away from changing their mission, especially because NATO was originally formed as a deterrent against the Soviet bloc.

The discussion we had in my IO class on NATO centered around the idea of NATO changing and struggling to adapt to a new world order after the end of the Cold War. NATO couldn't masquerade as an organization still trying to deter the USSR once that threat was gone. Unlike most international organizations that no longer serve a purpose, instead of dying out, NATO took the opportunity to revamp itself as a completely new organization. NATO even went so far as to include Russia, its former arch-nemesis, in some of its discussions. My question is why would NATO try to evolve, why not say, our mission of deterring the USSR and the Warsaw Pact is complete? Maybe the Neoliberal Institutionalists are right, that we do see cooperation as beneficial. Perhaps that is why the states involved in NATO are so reluctant to see it disappear and instead have tried to alter its mandate.

On a side note: Our small group today discussed whether we thought any other countries would go to war without the U.S. For example, with the British sailors that were held hostage in Iran last spring- if that situation had not been worked out peacefully or some other event happened- would the British go to war without the U.S.? The U.S. doesn't mind going to war without NATO, but would the opposite be true. Is the rest of the world relying on the U.S. to fight their wars or is the U.S. really just the schoolyard bully?