Is NATO a force for good? I'll gather NATO's record and competing perspectives to weigh the question.
Whether NATO is a "force for good" depends on how its record is evaluated. The alliance is generally credited with providing security and stability, but it is also criticized for provoking tensions and for the results of its interventions.
What NATO Is
NATO was founded in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II, with the purpose of securing peace and security in Europe. The agreement founding the organization was signed in Washington D.C. in April 1949 by twelve nations with the ambition to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, prevent the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe and encourage European political integration.
Its primary purpose is to ensure collective defense and security of its member states, meaning an armed attack against one or more members is considered an attack against them all, as stated in Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
Arguments That NATO Is a Force for Good
Supporters point to deterrence and stability:
•Trade does not thrive amid war and instability, and NATO has been an indispensable component of international peace and the backbone of US national security since 1949. The Alliance is second only to nuclear deterrence as a guarantor of peace in Europe and a major force for global stability.
•It has been recognized for the Alliance's role in assuring peace, stability, and security in Europe and North America for the last seventy years.
•NATO today protects more than 1 billion people in Europe and North America from 21st-century threats.
Specific operations are often cited:
•Balkans: In 1995 NATO became involved in its first ever crisis response operation, leading the Implementation Force, a peace enforcement force during the Bosnian War. Later, NATO-led forces in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia helped manage crises and build stability, and the NATO-led KFOR is trusted, and recognised, by all parties as an impartial peacekeeper. In fact, NATO is today the most effective peacekeeper in the world.
•Counter-terrorism: 9/11 resulted in NATO invoking Article 5 for the first, and only, time.
•Political and economic integration: Supporters argue enlargement will promote stability in Europe by providing a secure environment for new members to further consolidate democracy and open markets, gradually end Cold-War divisions and bring new members into an integrated Euro-Atlantic community, and that the NATO-Russia Founding Act of May 1997 provides Moscow with "a voice but not a veto".
Arguments and Criticisms That It Is Not
Critics raise concerns about expansion, costs, and interventions:
•Expansion and Russia: Key arguments against NATO expansion include the concern that it will exacerbate tensions with Russia. NATO expansion has been viewed by Russia as a threat to its security interests, leading to tensions and a deterioration of relations. Critics have called it "a policy error of historic proportions," a view attributed to diplomat George Kennan, the father of U.S. containment policy.
Opponents argue there is no threat to any current ally or candidate state, and enlargement will create new dividing lines in Europe by putting Russia on guard against an alliance moving into its traditional areas of influence, and will humiliate Moscow and create a "Weimar Russia," vulnerable to Russian nationalists hostile to the west.
•Mission Dilution and Cost: Other arguments are that enlargement will result in substantial costs and risks that the allies are unwilling to share, and will dilute the mission, political likemindedness, and military effectiveness of the alliance. Detailed estimates have ranged from $27-35 billion over 12 years to as high as $60-125 billion, and that it will complicate decisionmaking by admitting countries unable to contribute meaningfully to collective defense.
•Interventions: NATO's interventions have mixed evaluations. Critics list that NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure, that the NATO-led mission failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade, and that NATO's operations over Libya and Kosovo were illegitimate. Some analysts argue NATO is seen as a hegemonic tool for the pursuit of American national interests, with military operations in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya gaining strategic influence for the USA.
Research on Kosovo and Libya found that NATO did succeed in its mission in Kosovo, while it failed in its mission in Libya.
How Public Opinion Views NATO
Public views are generally positive but vary by country and party:
•Across 13 NATO member states, 65% of people have a favorable view of the alliance. Favorable views are particularly high in Poland, Sweden, Germany, the U.K. and Canada, with Poland at 75%.
•People in Greece and Turkey express the lowest opinion: 59% in each country hold an unfavorable view.
•In the United States, polling found 68% of Americans supported maintaining or increasing the US commitment to NATO, and seven out of ten Americans (71%) strongly or somewhat support NATO.
Conclusion
Supporters see NATO as a defensive alliance that has prevented major war in Europe, enabled reconstruction and democratic consolidation, and coordinated peacekeeping and disaster response.
Critics see it as a Cold War institution that persisted and expanded after its original adversary disappeared, raising costs, entangling members in out-of-area wars, and increasing confrontation with Russia.
An assessment of whether it is a "force for good" therefore often comes down to which outcomes are prioritized: deterrence and stability for members versus geopolitical tensions and the consequences of interventions outside its original mandate.