Post photo: NATO Logo | © Pixabay
I was able to listen to my first NATO lecture as an officer candidate in the summer of 1983. I can't remember what the lecture was about today, but the surrounding events were more exciting back then. The German NATO representative, who spoke mainly to a German-speaking audience, was forced to speak in English. And so that everyone in the room could follow what was being said, there was an interpreter. The really exciting thing was that the speaker argued with the interpreter because he didn't feel he was being properly translated. At the time, the argument was ended by the highest authority present in the room by agreeing with the "translator's diploma".
Years later, our translator in a NATO staff asked me to be transferred because he was afraid of losing his English skills completely. Over the decades, NATO had not only grown, but its inner essence had also changed. This was evident in the NATO English that was now spoken there, which took on a very unique form with the accession of former Soviet countries.
75 years ago, NATO was founded as a defense alliance (see: North Atlantic Treaty) against the Soviet Union and was a political alliance from the start. We federalists in particular saw NATO as an opportunity to further unite the Western world. In any case, it helped NATO partners to get closer to one another and to improve the world through mutual exchange - not to mention that many countries were only able to develop under NATO's protection.
Almost from the beginning, however, there were also members who not only wanted to use NATO for their own ends, but were also prepared to torpedo it at every opportunity. As a political alliance, these "minority opinions" were supported to a certain extent and tolerated.
And so the real focus from the beginning was to make the “alliance partners” into alliance partners. The integration of us West Germans can be seen as exemplary, even if the British and French probably agree to this day that Hastings Lionel Ismays motto still holds true: “To keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down."
From the beginning, it was especially the French and, even today, the Turks who have had a difficult time arriving in the West since the 17th century.
In the meantime, NATO has grown so large, similar to the Council of Europe or the EU, that the question of "deepening" or "expansion" must be asked here too. At least some of the former Warsaw Pact countries - Hungary, for example - show that they are not concerned with Western values and democratic politics, but solely with the greatest possible self-interest, which also includes betrayal of the alliance.
But even in the old NATO countries, parts of the population still have reservations about Western values and democratic systems. And these reservations can still be expressed very well in NATO today - especially if one restricts oneself exclusively to its military components.
At a time when NATO has to deal with several attackers (including the Russian Federation and China), these anti-democratic forces can be suppressed as they did in the 1970s and 1980s (see: NATO double-track decision) as a fifth column. And now, slowly but surely, they are pulling out the old stops again (“Petting instead of Pershing”).
For some old politicians, it's a real fountain of youth when, in their old age, they can once again get excited about throwing stones and Molotov cocktails or at least loosening wheel nuts. At the very least, they're once again ranting on all channels.
Like the EU and the Council of Europe, NATO is simply too good for our world. Political systems that rely on the maturity of citizens and their democratic engagement probably have no future. The world will soon belong to the stone throwers again.
I almost forgot. Dear NATO, congratulations on your 75th anniversary!
"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and governments. They are determined to ensure the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, liberty of the person and the rule of law. They are anxious to promote internal stability and prosperity in the North Atlantic area. They are determined to unite their efforts for the common defense and for the maintenance of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty:"
Preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty (Washington DC, April 4, 1949)
