The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed for the purpose of resisting potential Soviet expansion into Western Europe. The Soviet Union has staggered into the ash-heap of history, and the Russian Federation is not any kind of credible threat anymore. In fact, discounting current small diplomatic problems, the US and Russia have entered into a global “partnership.”
The “Coalition of the Willing” in the current war has no congruence with NATO membership at all. The “mutual defense” provisions of the treaty relating to the charter members seem to be irrelevant in the world we face today. New or earlier non-charter signatories (like Turkey and certain Eastern European nations) have climbed onboard to a mutual defense contract with the UK and US for reasons unrelated to NATO’s original purpose.
All nations pursue their own interests. That’s just a reality of global politics.
Shouldn’t the charter members of NATO reassess their interests, and conclude new treaties with countries with similar interests, and abandon outmoded treaties which no longer work?
Dissolved? No, I don’t think so. NATO will be useful as long as there are countries out there our politicians (and others) can point to and say “They’re bad, that’s why we need a strong military.”
Further I think that you’ll see a pretty heavy coalition along NATO lines (along with newer members) after the war in Iraq, when attention turns to North Korea and, ultimately, China. I think that the new buzzword will be not be “WMD” so much as it will be “human rights.” Nonetheless, I think we’ll be involved in yet another conflict sooner than everyone thinks.
As for the “coalition of the willing” I think it’s pretty unique to this particular situation because a lot of countries and people simply don’t see Iraq as the threat the GWB does. I can’t say that this will be the feeling regarding North Korea or China.