My views on NATO

I recently finished a stint in DC during which I participated in a model NATO simulation. I had a great time in DC, seeing the monuments and riding the metro (yes, it was pretty cool). But I would be lying if I didn't say that I had the most fun working on the NATO simulation itself. I, and six other people, went to DC to work on the North Atlantic Council and five sub-committees. I was on the North Atlantic Council.

Here is what I learned, after a short disclaimer. My simulation conference wasn't totally accurate in the respect that we only had three days and not everybody did a good job simulating their respective countries. For example: Czech Republic, played by Converse College, was one of the loudest and most outspoken delegations when they, in reality, should have accommodated the major players and stayed silent. And the most amusing role-playing mix up of the entire event was the Canadian school that played the United States. Clearly, the professors that were playing home government forgot that Barack Obama was elected, and subsequently sent aircraft to blow up a ship carrying weapons grade uranium. That was a move G.W. would have made, President Obama wouldn't have done that. So, obviousness of a simulation aside...

This organization was built for defense from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact after World War II. With the threat of hordes of Soviet tanks rolling across the German frontier towards France, Western Europe and the USA formed the mutual defense pact known as NATO. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, NATO must redefine itself for the 21st century. I found that in this simulation much of the time was spent trying to redefine NATO in conference instead of looking at problems and trying to do what can be done to remedy them. This was time wasting and irritating to say the least. Conversely, you can argue that NATO must have a new mission in mind to be able to consistently deal with outside dilemmas. I agree with both views, and that creates a logic circle. Don't you love those?

In the end, NATO needs to define itself again. With twenty six member states, NATO has it easy when it comes to building a consensus. Most countries have simmilar views and goals and have seen the same thing. Most of them being on the same continent doesn't hurt either. However, it does take time and some negotiation to make the best of what you have and get that consensus. What comes of that consensus is usually meaningful legislation. But, this doesn't prevent the usual bickering that member states often engage in while playing power politics. It's sad, really. NATO is one of the most useful international organizations in the world.