Is NATO a force of good in the world?

Is NATO a force for good? I'll weigh the case for and against — gathering current assessments of its defense, peacekeeping, and controversies.

NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is one of the world's major international institutions. It is a political and military Alliance of member countries from Europe and North America that takes all its decisions by consensus.

Whether it is a "force for good" is debated. Arguments exist on both sides:

Arguments that NATO is a force for good

1. Collective defense and deterrence:
The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend NATO's territory and populations, with Article 5 stating that an attack on one shall be considered an attack on all. This collective defense guarantee has deterred aggression against member states and provided a security umbrella that has contributed to stability and prosperity of the transatlantic region.

One of the key achievements cited during the Cold War was its ability to prevent a major conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union by showcasing collective strength and sending a clear message that any attack on one member would be met with a united response. In the five decades after World War II, the Alliance successfully prevented the Cold War from becoming "hot".

Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO's history, on 12 September 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks on the United States.

2. Crisis management and peacekeeping:
The Alliance has frequently acted to uphold international peace and security. In 1995, NATO helped to end the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and implemented the peace agreement. In 1999, NATO helped to stop mass killings and expulsions in Kosovo. Since 2003, its UN-mandated presence helped ensure Afghanistan would not again become a safe haven for terrorists, and in 2011 NATO enforced a UN mandate to protect the people of Libya.

Proponents point to Kosovo as a rare success where NATO intervention resulted in democracy and the rule of law and regard its central military and political objectives there as largely secured.

3. Promotion of values and cooperation:
Member states are committed to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are at the heart of NATO's transatlantic bond. Supporters note NATO also promotes American values of democracy and rule of law, with 26 of the 29 NATO member states labelled as "free" by Freedom House in 2018, and that it is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself.

For these reasons former NATO commander Admiral Stavridis has called NATO "a force for good around the world".

Public opinion in many member states reflects this view. Majorities in most NATO member states view NATO positively, with solid majorities in Poland (75%) and the Czech Republic (66%) expressing favorable opinions. In the United States, seven out of ten Americans (71%) strongly or somewhat support NATO.

Arguments that NATO is not a force for good / Criticisms

1. Legality and sovereignty:
One common criticism is that NATO interventions often lack a clear legal basis under international law. While some interventions have been authorized by the UN Security Council, others have been undertaken without such authorization, raising questions about legitimacy. Critics argue NATO should be guided by principles of international law and respect for national sovereignty.

2. Expansion and relations with Russia:
NATO's expansion eastwards has been a significant point of contention for Russia, which views it as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. Key arguments against NATO expansion include concern that it will exacerbate tensions with Russia, result in substantial costs and risks, and dilute the mission, political likemindedness, and military effectiveness of the alliance.

Some critics believe NATO's interventions and bombings have escalated regional tensions rather than resolved them, and that conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war are partly a result of NATO's aggressive expansion. Others argue that by participating in offensive operations and interventions, NATO can create more conflicts than it solves.

3. Mixed record of interventions:
Even when interventions were seen as initially successful, the longer-term outcomes are debated:

Critics also argue the Alliance is first and foremost a military alliance, and calls to save NATO because it is a bulwark of liberal values have it backwards, and that NATO has been progressively transformed into a foreign expeditionary force from the bombing of Serbia to Afghanistan.

Conclusion

Whether NATO is seen as a force for good often depends on perspective:

Public polling suggests majority support within member states persists, but public opinion is not unanimous and varies significantly by country and political context.