Redefining NATO's failures in transitional justice

In present political discourse, it is widely regarded that NATO is a military alliance that operates with the core intention to effectively preserve and maintain sovereignty and establish diplomatic ties between member nations, so as to provide additional security against potential international and geopolitical threats to their socioeconomic and political stability that could likely be prevalent. This has arguably always been their main role by which they were set up to fulfil in that they were developed in that they were founded to deter and protect against the threats posed by the Soviet Union when it was at its peak, as well as having been set about with the support from the UN Charter so as to effectively maintain this in relation to international law (this being led and heavily influenced by maintaining diplomatic relations with the US, thus further fostering any of the potential militarist and neo-colonial intentions that said nations may have). During the era after the Second World War and the point at which the Soviet Union was at its height, there was a widespread fear of existential neo-colonial threat and inability for the European region to properly defend itself from confrontation by the Eastern Bloc which they were in conflict with. This would thus potentially have far reaching impacts on their economies, therefore meaning that important geostrategic military alliances and effective methods in place to preserve good international economic relations and trading abilities would need to be carefully maintained so as to not put their ability to function as  sovereign nation states at risk (while also further isolating and threatening ties with the Eastern Bloc and other world alliances). This can thus prove to be important in reflecting on NATO (and all other military alliances presently in place) as merely a means of reinstating and further advocating for Western imperialist and capitalist supremacy, and thriving off of the mentality that instigating and assisting interregional and global conflict does little other than represent the interests of the most influential elite Western superpowers, and further exacerbate global disparity, corruption and failing systems within an unevenly developed world, also in turn proving to reduce democracy.

Alliances are seen to be the means by which to maintain cooperation specifically for the core motives of maintaining a good level of security and supporting the military influence of the leading most geopolitically influential nations in its development. This would, arguably and most likely, further appear to disprove the argument that them being in place would act as an instrumental means of preserving and maintaining stable democracy, and present their operations and the lack of success of these as being largely down to the corruption evident within the bureaucratic and militarist means thay set about on an international scale. Considering the definition of an alliance given by Stephen M. Walt in which they are described as  “a formal or informal arrangement for security cooperation between two or more sovereign states”, thus requiring agreement to engage with and support established armed conflict with the aim to provide for mutual individual political interests. Furthermore, it has also been argued that there having potentially been some level of what has been described as systemic anarchy and structural polarity within the leadership in many alliances, which has thus potentially appeared a means of undermining security and reducing the credibility of this leadership in the agreement of means by which to maintain international sovereignty. This has been the case with NATO.

This can be reflected on when observing the case of post-revolutionary Libya after Gaddafi, and its importance both historically and in the present day in relation to these ideals. During this period after revolution took place, there was huge interest in the bringing about of support for and influencing operations for the nation from both a domestic and an international level, as is evident a lot of the time regarding the facilitation of transitional justice. This sentiment can be further substantiated through the clear interest and appeal of intervening in Libya for many European nations such as France, with their main intentions being to use this to help increase support for Sarkovsky who was appearing hugely unpopular at the time of the 2012 French presidential elections, as well as further preserve and maintain their imperial and neo-colonial presence within the Northern African region, especially considering their previous failings with the Arab Spring in Tunisia. Similar attitudes were adopted by much of the rest of Europe, it also proving to be important to note the negative attitudes many had towards Gaddafi's governance proved to act as an important initiator of this European neo-colonial expansionist agenda, as well as the formation of close ties to important geostrategic players, these ties being maintained by good organisation within NATO and collaboration amongst member states on core sociopolitical and geostrategic aims. These arguments are further reflected through George Liska's statement arguing that “alliances help to direct the military, technological, economic, and sociocultural capabilities and at tributes of a particular state to the purposes of a larger collective body”. This, however, appears to be a hugely militarist and highly western centric take on the matter especially seeing as it would prove difficult to describe Gaddafi's Libya as an authoritative militaristic state which acts as a threat to global democracy and further assists corruption and systematic exploitation and abuse of power, considering the ways in which this was established.