Responding to Suggested New Role for NATO

Submitted by Andria Switzer (Canada), Oct 7, 2006 at 21:53

While NATO may well have mandated itself to defend democracies, and to collaborate as one when one member was targetted, it is by its very nature a North Atlantic based organization, and therefore cannot replace the UN and achieve global credibility. The Southern Hemisphere is more depressed economically and in every other way, be it social, technological, environmental. People of the south feel beleagured by people from northern hemispheres.

Dr. Pipes mentions several southern countries for membership in NATO or associate membership. Perhaps a name and brand change would make this possible. That the UN is not fulfilling its vision is clear. Is NATO sufficiently resourced, sufficiently democratic, sufficiently large and committed to fight global Islamic Jihad? Is there any other multinational, government sponsored body that would even consider it?

What strikes me as the biggest oppostion to such action will be the existence of significant Muslim minorities in most European and North American countries.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".