NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s time of service is over next week, on Tuesday 1 October 2024, after ten years at the helm. Many are glad, others not, and we know that the world’s largest military organization lives its own life irrespective of the name of the leader. The new chief is Mark Rutte (57) from the Netherlands, also he, like the Norwegian Stoltenberg (65), a former PM in coalition governments. The alliance now has 32 members in all, after Finland and Sweden joined last year and earlier this year. As always, the USA is the dominant member as for funding and policies. Yet, for the media and the general public, the NATO chief plays an important role, indeed so when there is a war on European soil, now with NATO on Ukraine’s side after Russia’s broader invasion on 24 February 2022. More controversially, NATO has several times taken part in operations outside its own territory, such as in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and it has partner countries in Asia and elsewhere although it is intended to be a North Atlantic Treaty Organization, established in 1949 following the end of WWII.
During Stoltenberg’s time, NATO remained close to the USA, also when Donald Trump was American President. Of course, you may say, because that is how it is with the world’s major superpower, responsible for the majority of the NATO members’ military budgets; the USA has much over a hundred military bases in over eighty countries around the world, and some six hundred on own territory. Agreeing to Trump’s requirements, Stoltenberg managed to get the European NATO members to increase their military budgets, and two per cent of each country’s GDP became the general norm, not the maximum but the minimum. Now, the NATO members and we all live in a time of rearmament and militarization, with less focus on reduction of nuclear arsenals, and no focus on reduction of conventional military capacity and active peace creation; the latter is also part of NATO’s mandate.
Stoltenberg has in several farewell interviews said that he joined the alliance at a time of relative peace and harmony, now he is leaving the alliance with conflicts in Europe and even with darker clouds on the sky, not experienced since 1945. Stoltenberg says this almost with a tongue in cheque, well, being serious, too, but that kind of self-critical is quite light, knowing that he cannot quite be blamed for the situation alone, since the main responsibility is reserved for Russia and President Putin.
About the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Stoltenberg has now said that he and NATO did too little to make Ukraine militarily better equipped to defend itself. True, but it is an evasive type of self-criticism, coming ten years late, and the invasion was not foreseen, according to NATO that time, although the conflict and war in Ukraine began in 2014, the same years as Stoltenberg joined NATO. Crimea was annexed and the unrest in the east of Ukraine became war-like. There was plenty of time for NATO to have done something about that, and then I don’t only mean military help to Ukraine, but also dialogue and talks with Russia. Putin had warned NATO and the West of Russia’s spheres of interest and ‘red line’ as long back as 2008 and 2009.
As for Russia annexing Crimea, I believe that most NATO member countries and leaders in the West gave a silent nod to that, realizing that it was understandable that Russia wanted full control over the Black Sea (as it has in the north in Murmansk), and indeed not have an expanding NATO in Ukraine. Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-1991, and Ukraine became independent on 24 August 1991, there was an opportunity for the old iron curtain to be pulled aside properly and more ordinary and true cooperation developed between the West and Russia, in the interest of all parties, that time, and also today. Well, it is not realpolitik at the moment, but I believe the situation will change over some decades, provided escalation of the current situation is avoided and things do not get out of hand.
NATO is a defence organization, and it is also meant to work for reducing tension and conflicts, and work for peace and cooperation between countries and between groups within countries who may disagree on important issues, caused by different ethnic, religious, economic and other background variables, indeed lack of equality. Also, it is important to work towards better environmental stewardship. NATO has focused on military issues, which it should, but it should also have worked much more on peace creation issues and civilian defence and ways of living together in a world which is increasingly becoming more intercultural. Alas, the role of the multinationals is not given attention by NATO.
NATO and its member countries must work for disarmament and reduction of conventional and nuclear arsenals, and revive old cooperation agreements and develop new ones, to reach a less dangerous world. It ought to be obvious that NATO and other military and civilian and institutions work more clearly for democratic development and peace, and that would also mean curtailing the international roles of the USA. We live in a time when the peace movements are hardly visible in the public debate, the media and educational institutions. NATO should also be worried about that.
The oldest peace organization in Sweden and the world, Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen (Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, SPAS), established in 1883, argues that Sweden has not become safer after it became a NATO member, rather the opposite. ‘Svenska Freds’, as it is referred to for short, also underlines that with the huge increase in the Swedish defence budget, to reach 2.4 percent of GDP in 2025, resources are used wrongly, and at least some of the money should have been allocated to issues related to support for sustainable peace, disarmament and democracy development. Those fields were key parts of Sweden’s international image, foreign policy and standing in the past; now that proud history is getting lost. One can still hope, maybe a bit naively, that official Swedish representatives in NATO keep the old values alive, yes, within the alliance, along with representative from other countries.
In sum, Jens Stoltenberg did a very good job as NATO chief, on the alliance’s terms, appreciated by Presidents Trump and Biden alike, and the rest of the more warmongering West. But there is a lot left for Mark Rutte to do, notably to create a new NATO that works for true peace and cooperation, including with Russia, China and beyond. It is not written in stone that there must be a lasting conflict between Russia and the West, well, even though the West’s and certainly the USA’s weapon industry benefit from it.
Finally, it is interesting to know that when Stoltenberg as a young man and chair of the Labour Party’s youth wing (AUF), he was against Norway’s NATO membership, a country which was a founding member of the alliance. Stoltenberg changed his mind, and we must admit that NATO has come to stay, being for it or against it. Yet, even the Secretary-General, who is now stepping down, has harboured doubts about the alliance during his political life time. Good is that, and it is worthy of a leader in the cultural West, where peace and human rights are seen as being foundation stones in our time. There is time and need for re-emphasizing this in the future so we can build a more peaceful world – which is the only thing worthy of NATO, Europe and Russia, as we wipe our tears for a the tragic war in Ukraine.
Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached at atlehetland@yahoo.com
