'NATO might pose as much a threat to global peace and security as any "rogue nation" '

When the Cold War ended, NATO's existence became redundant.

In fact, NATO began combat operations only after the collapse of the Soviet Union – once during the UN-opposed bombing of Yugoslavia, and now in Afghanistan.

Does the world need NATO, or would it be better off without it?

Its hypocritical position that “the first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction” suggests that NATO might pose as much a threat to global peace and security as any “rogue nation.”

In addition to its “first strike” option, NATO's manifesto also includes the use of force without UN Security Council authorization, and the abolishment of national caveats where individual countries can dictate how its troops are to be used.

If the world's international governing body had the tools with which it could actually make the planet a better and safer place for everything living on it, there would be no need for any military alliances.

What the world needs is a democratic United Nations with teeth.

The Security Council should be entirely elected without any permanent members. One country, one vote – “rogue nation” or not.

Permanent members belong in dictatorships and despotisms. Blue Helmets should adopt a greater peace-making (rather than peace-keeping) role where a certain percentage (say 25%) of any country's standing army must be represented.

Strict sanctions against those opposing UN resolutions should be implemented, regardless of what the IMF, World Bank or G8 thinks.

~ From To Be , Or NATO Be? ~