AHC: Bring an end to NATO post 1991

[James G]

Can NATO cease to exist post 1991?
With the 'job done' and 'mission accomplished' considering the demise of USSR, could there be a successful effort to see an end to the organisation?
What, if anything, could replace NATO?

[stevep]

Aug 4, 2019 19:12:17 GMT James G said:

Can NATO cease to exist post 1991?
With the 'job done' and 'mission accomplished' considering the demise of USSR, could there be a successful effort to see an end to the organisation?
What, if anything, could replace NATO?

  I suspect it seems unlikely as the alliance has provided a lot of support and security in Europe and influence for the US.  While Russia under Yelsin looked no threat there was no certainty that would last, as Putin showed.  Also since everybody wanted a peace dividend it was more stable to have them all take a share within an established alliance.

  Possibly if you had an earlier rise of someone like Trump who was mistrustful of the EU and demanding that Europe makes an higher contribution?  This might start happening in the future anyway as the EU becomes increasingly insular and the US, especially if Trump was to get re-elected, seeks to up the ante, possibly even threatening to withdraw from NATO if his demands aren't accepted. 

  In terms of any replacement it would depend on the circumstances, including what killed NATO, the relationships between the former members and the perceived threats(s).

[spanishspy]

Perhaps a US invasion of Iran during the 2000s? Generally more Middle Eastern fuckery on the part of Washington (and London) would tank the credibility of the alliance.

[stevep]

Aug 5, 2019 3:14:46 GMT spanishspy said:

Perhaps a US invasion of Iran during the 2000s? Generally more Middle Eastern fuckery on the part of Washington (and London) would tank the credibility of the alliance.

  That's another possibility.  I'm not sure even Britain would have followed the US into Iran, at least without a bloody good reason.

[Zyobot]

Aug 5, 2019 8:05:24 GMT stevep said:

Aug 5, 2019 3:14:46 GMT spanishspy said:

Perhaps a US invasion of Iran during the 2000s? Generally more Middle Eastern fuckery on the part of Washington (and London) would tank the credibility of the alliance.

  That's another possibility.  I'm not sure even Britain would have followed the US into Iran, at least without a bloody good reason.

Wouldn't this depend on if a NATO member is provoked by Iran, though? Because my understanding is that according to the terms of the treaty, an attack on one member state is received as an attack on all of them and is responded towards as such.

[James G]

Aug 5, 2019 10:11:01 GMT Zyobot said:

Aug 5, 2019 8:05:24 GMT stevep said:

  That's another possibility.  I'm not sure even Britain would have followed the US into Iran, at least without a bloody good reason.

Wouldn't this depend on if a NATO member is provoked by Iran, though? Because my understanding is that according to the terms of the treaty, an attack on one member state is received as an attack on all of them and is responded towards as such.

Things are a bit more complicated there.
The treaty covers the areas of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe. This includes the Med and Turkey.
In 1982, the UK was attacked in the South Atlantic and thus no one HAD to come to its aid. Countries could have though, operating outside of the treaty stipulations. NATO had command of Afghanistan ops in the 2000s / 2010s despite this region not being in the 1949 treaty.
The only time the mutual defence clauses of NATO have ever been activated were after 9-11 where each country in the alliance promised aid to the US. There were fighter missions flown by the Canadians as well as the NATO AWACS force going across to America too.

Now should a NATO country fight anywhere in the world, say in Iran, there is no block on NATO partners joining them either independently or using the NATO framework. It can be done but doesn't have to be.

[James G]

Something else occurred to me this afternoon on another example of NATO in action... or inaction.
In mid-1986, Libya bombed a nightclub in West Berlin killing American servicemen. This was an attack on a NATO partner inside Europe. When the US wanted to hit back, which it did, multiple countries refused to allow overflights of their territory. F-111s from UK bases flew around France, Spain and Italy to hit Libya: a long flight but one done well.
These NATO countries justified their acts by stating that the Americans had started it with Libya - the naval action in the Gulf of Sirte - and so this wasn't a case of a NATO country being attacked first but rather being hit back instead. The 1949 treaty does state the mutual defence clauses come into effect following an armed attack upon a member so technically, those countries were in the right with what they did.

[forcon]

Maybe a big 'Iran-Contra' type scandal involving US bases in Europe in conjunction with a Eurosceptic President and additional wars in the ME that are unpopular in Europe could do it?

Otherwise, how about a more successful far right movement in Europe? Say Golden Dawn comes to power in Greece and the Alliance expels them, then Front Nationale is elected in France (as a result of increased Islamophobia caused by terrorist atrocities and riots) and leaves the Alliance. This could lay the framework for similar governments arising and following suite in Italy, Hungary, and perhaps other states. Apologies if this is too much current politics.

[lukedalton]

Maybe instead of Clinton in 1992 we have a more traditional isolationist president that decide to get the 'peace dividend' now that the cold war is over and to concentrate on the 'traditional' area of interest of the USA aka the Pacific, Asia and Latin America.
Not saying that the USA leave totally the european continent, but instead of an alliance like NATO is more a mutual defense treaty with the EU with no troops in the continent and much more limited collaboration in term of security