On 16 March, Edinburgh Union attendees passed the motion: “This house has no confidence in NATO to solve modern security challenges.”
As noted by the opening speaker for the proposition, Jacob Nesling, the topic of debate was a pertinent one. Only a few hours prior had President Trump suggested member countries were jeopardising the alliance by failing to fully support the USA in their war with Iran.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was founded primarily to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. Initially composed of twelve member states, 32 countries now form the alliance, with Sweden and Finland the most recent joiners.
However, with conflicts becoming more frequent and also changing in nature, Nesling questioned whether the alliance was equipped to face the threats of hybrid warfare.
Increasingly over the past decade, Russia has been linked to cyber attacks, airspace incursions, infrastructure sabotage, and disinformation campaigns across Europe.
Dr. Leila Alieva, an associate at Oxford’s School of Global and Area Studies and Senior Fellow at Friends of Europe, outlined that NATO was adapting to modern security threats. Members are deploying specialised counter-hybrid support teams, enhancing intelligence sharing, and have confirmed that hybrid attacks can trigger collective defense agreements.
Rainsey Barnard, a fourth year history and politics student and former News Editor at The Student, argued that Article 5 — the declaration that an attack on one member state constitutes an attack on all — remained the jewel in NATO’s crown.
He highlighted the war in Ukraine, suggesting that if the Eastern European country had been part of NATO Russia would not have invaded in 2022. Dismissing the view that NATO expansion may have provoked Putin in the first place, he analogised the Russian dictator to a neighbour complaining about the installation of a burglar alarm system in the house next door.
Mary Dejevsky, a foreign affairs columnist for The Independent, pointed out that NATO neither had the capability to prevent Russia’s invasion or bring an end to the conflict. Instead, the invaluable support offered to Ukraine came from individual nations committed to European security, rather than NATO itself.
She stated conclusively that the institution was “past it and useless.”
Senior lecturer in politics and international relations, Dr. Benjamin Martill described NATO as the “most successful military alliance in history,” reinforcing Mr Barnard’s earlier point that since its formation no member nation has been effectively invaded.
Sophie Johnson closed the speaking for the proposition. As the Secretary of Stop the War Scotland, Johnson pertinently reminded the audience that the institution risked tying the foreign policy of member countries to that of the USA’s — NATO’s biggest financial contributor.
The current war in Iran will show how comfortable member states are in distancing themselves from the directives of the US President.
Reflecting on the debate, Rainsey Barnard told The Student: “I thoroughly enjoyed participating… Although we lost (narrowly), it was ultimately great practice for next time, as I learned how to present my argument in front of over 100 of my peers.
“An aspect [of the Edinburgh Union] that sometimes gets missed… is its ability to bring people together to work as a team and make a sustained argument.
He concluded: “I will likely remain in contact with my fellow colleagues for a long time yet. And I have the Edinburgh Union to thank for that.”
The Edinburgh Union’s next debate will ask if universities have forgotten their purpose and is set to take place on 30 March.
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash