Is NATO the only possible way?

There is another type of coercion that can be called a conditional alliance. It is a situation where an allied country conditions the fulfillment of mutual obligations by agreeing to new conditions, which may or may not be in line with our vital interests. It currently concerns the Czech Republic's involvement in the North Atlantic Alliance and, above all, our relationship with the United States.

According to the German Spiegel, the American president gave NATO an ultimatum when he called for a specific commitment to send warships or other military capabilities to the Middle East. Member states reportedly risk losing American support for good if they don't meet Trump's demands. The US President has reportedly told the NATO Secretary General that instead of a statement of support, he is demanding concrete measures. Donald Trump then wrote on the Truth Social network: "None of these people, including our own, very disappointing, NATO, understood anything unless they have pressure placed upon them!!!"

Unfortunately, NATO Secretary General Rutte's meeting with Donald Trump in Washington did not clarify relations within the alliance and what we can expect within it. On the contrary, Mark Rutte proved to be a weak and pliant bureaucrat.
Instead of having a substantive discussion and defending the interests of all member countries, he showered President Trump with praise and admitted that Europe must increase its arms spending.

Rutte: "We must applaud Trump for his bold leadership and vision."

He described an alleged "change in thinking" in Europe that he claimed was evident in the leadership of the coalition of countries that helped reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He also admitted that we are living through "a period of profound change in the transatlantic alliance... there is no going back, and there should not be." Some allies are said to have been "a bit slow" to support US attacks in Iran. Rutte rounded off the embarrassment by declaring that "to be fair, the allies were also a bit surprised". Trump said he did not tell allies about his plans because he wanted to "preserve the element of surprise for the initial strikes." So much from an official who, among other things, is responsible for the proper sharing of information between NATO members.

Rutte: "When I look around Europe today, I see that the allies are providing enormous support... to ensure that the powerful American military succeeds in denying Iran a nuclear weapon." Apparently, unlike NATO member countries, he received his own information about the alleged eminent danger from the Iranian regime, which has not yet been publicly proven in any way.

We ask how Rutte, who made a mockery even by explaining whether he addresses Trump as "dad", helps our country with the defense of national interests?

Unfortunately, there is clearly a fundamental difference between what we thought membership in NATO meant for the security of our country, what benefits and obligations result from the documents defining our membership, and above all what membership of the Czech Republic in NATO really means.

Many of us considered NATO membership to be a natural and logical way to ensure the defense and protection of the country within the unique community of sovereign and democratic countries. NATO was not perceived primarily as a military bloc, but as an institution that ensures security against external aggression and allows sharing responsibility for freedom and democracy in Europe. Global threats (e.g. terrorism) in this framework cannot be solved in isolation or on a bilateral basis and require collective structures such as NATO. Part of NATO's functioning is mutual solidarity and automatic assistance in the event of an attack on a member state.

President Havel formulated this idea in particular.
At the signing of the accession documents (February 26, 1999): "It gives us hope that our country will never again succumb or be sacrificed to any aggressor, and at the same time expresses a clear determination to share responsibility for the freedom of nations, human rights, democratic values ​​and peace on our continent."
Explanation of the benefits of membership in 2002 (about security in the global world), interview for Czech Radio: "...we live in such a world and we should be sufficiently aware of it and we should not think that between our mountains... we can create some kind of enclave of safety... this is not the case at all in today's interconnected global world."
About NATO as a functioning collective defense organization (1997), interview for "Moskovskiye Novosti": "... then we find that the only really functioning organization that could be an instrument of collective European defense is the North Atlantic Alliance."

What is written should apply. The membership of the Czech Republic in the North Atlantic Alliance is enshrined in international and national documents. More precisely:

International documents:
The North Atlantic Treaty (Washington Treaty, 1949) is the basic legal document of NATO. The Czech Republic is a signatory (after adoption on March 12, 1999).
Main terms of membership:
Article 4: consultation in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity, political independence or security of a member
Article 5: collective defense ("an attack on one member is an attack on all")
Article 6: delimitation of territory where Article 5 applies (CR – entire territory + airspace, inland waters, jurisdiction over military units abroad)
Article 10: new members – ratification by parliaments of existing members
The Protocol on the Accession of the Czech Republic (1999) is a document between NATO and the Czech Republic formalizing the accession. It stipulates: membership effective date March 12, 1999, commitment to contribute to defense capabilities, acceptance of all rights and obligations arising from the North Atlantic Treaty.

National documents:
Ratification of the protocol on the accession of the Czech Republic to NATO given by the Constitution, approved by the Parliament and signed by the President. It confirms the obligation to respect the obligations of the member state, the necessity to fulfill political and military obligations, the adoption of Article 5 as a basic security guarantee.
The defense strategy of the Czech Republic (updated every 3-5 years) ensures integration into NATO plans, modernization of the army for interoperability with allied forces, preparation for NATO crisis operations and collective defense.

The conditions for membership in NATO from the point of view of the security of the Czech Republic are as follows:
1. Collective defense (Article 5 Washington Treaty)
• an attack on the Czech Republic activates the allies' commitment
• protection of territory, air force, units and infrastructure objects
2. Consultation and coordination (Art. 4)
• in the event of a threat, other members are consulted
• prevention and crisis management policy
3. Contribution to defense capacities
• military forces compatible with NATO
• planning and exercises in alliance structures
4. Political and military integration
• participation in the NATO Council
• delegation of officers to command structures
• joint exercises, interoperability standards
5. Legal Obligations
• national legislation must enable the implementation of member obligations (e.g. deployment of units, sharing of information)

Membership in NATO should thus ensure the participation of the Czech Republic in collective defense, crisis coordination and access to shared military capacities, while the state must respect the military and political standards of the alliance.

Article 3 - Collective Defense Strengthening: "The Contracting Parties undertake, individually and jointly, to maintain and develop their capabilities for mutual defense cooperation and to strengthen the security of the North Atlantic region."

Consequence for the Czech Republic: the obligation to maintain an army and capabilities compatible with NATO, continuously modernize, ensure training and interoperability with other member states.

Article 4 - Consultation in case of threat: "The Contracting Parties agree that whenever questions arise which might threaten the security of either of them, they shall consult with each other in order to take the necessary measures."

Consequence for the Czech Republic: the obligation to consult with other members in the event of a security crisis and at the same time to participate in crisis planning and decision-making processes.

Article 5 - Collective Defense: "An attack by armed forces against one or more Contracting Parties in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all. Following such an attack, each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with constitutional procedures, render assistance, including the use of armed forces, to restore and maintain the security of the area."

Consequence for the Czech Republic: ensuring the collective defense of the Czech Republic and the obligation to contribute military means if Article 5 is activated.

Article 6 – Geographical scope of Article 5: "For the purposes of this Article, an attack shall cover the territories of Europe, North America, the territories of the United States in the Caribbean, the territories of Member States, their airspace and the territories where their forces are deployed in accordance with constitutional provisions."

Consequence for the Czech Republic: Article 5 applies to the entire territory of the Czech Republic, including airspace, and includes units of the Czech Republic deployed abroad within the framework of the alliance, but at the same time, it does not include all military operations of member states anywhere in the world.

Article 8 - Commitment to other agreements: "The Contracting Parties shall not reduce their obligations arising from other international agreements."

The consequence for the Czech Republic: membership in NATO must be compatible with the EU and other international obligations of our country.

Article 10 - Admission of new members: "The Contracting Parties may consider the enlargement of the alliance after ratification by new States."

Consequence for the Czech Republic: The Czech Republic must respect the processes of accepting new members and related obligations, and it can also block this acceptance.

It follows from the above that valid international and national documents do not oblige our country to submit unconditionally to the demands of the militarily strongest member of NATO - the United States. The North Atlantic Treaty also does not impose on the member states a specific percentage of GDP for defense or precise procedures for protecting the territory, but sets political and military obligations that the Czech Republic must fulfill as a member. It is no longer established that any of the member states can condition the fulfillment of their obligations within the framework of collective self-defense by fulfilling additional conditions.

Article 3 mandates member states to develop and maintain defense capabilities, individually and collectively, to ensure the security of the North Atlantic region. However, it does not anchor a specific financial goal, which was set and gradually increased only through subsequent political declarations. NATO originally recommended a reasonable 2% of GDP for defense, the Czech Republic voluntarily undertook to achieve this goal gradually.

According to Article 3, Member States are also obliged to ensure the protection of their own territory. But nothing gives them the right to doubt this ability in their allies. So that they can subsequently use it as a pretext for questioning their own commitment to solidarity assistance within the framework of collective defense.

Solidarity within NATO does not mean the obligation to automatically intervene in conflicts with the participation of member states, unless a situation occurs that activates Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. In other words: the Czech Republic has no obligation to participate in US military actions unless they are related to collective defense under the North Atlantic Treaty.

Article 5 states that "An attack by armed forces against one or more Contracting Parties in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all." The attack must take place on the territory of a member state (Europe, North America, territory under the control of a member). The Member State decides in accordance with its constitutional procedures how to help. The obligation to "render assistance" is not automatically military, it can be economic, logistical, humanitarian or diplomatic.

If the US were to be attacked outside of US territory (eg when Iran attacked US bases in the Middle East in response to an attack by Israel and the US), Article 5 would not apply to that situation. The Czech Republic could voluntarily provide support (military, logistical, humanitarian) based on the decision of the Government and the Parliament, but there is no legal obligation. NATO operations outside member territories are ad hoc, requiring the consensus decision of all states (e.g. intervention in Afghanistan 2001-2021).

A different situation would arise if Iran attacks an American base in Europe (e.g. Germany) or European NATO troops. Then Article 5 could be activated and the Czech Republic would have the obligation to consult and decide how to provide aid. This assistance could be military, logistical, training, humanitarian, cyber or political.

What NATO membership brings us in reality is shown by President Trump's concrete statements. It is certainly not the case that the other member countries would be defenseless without the US. But at the same time, the North Atlantic Alliance is being built around its dominant member in a long-term and targeted manner. Let's add that with his full knowledge and consent. The US president questions the importance of NATO, its necessity for the US and, above all, the validity of commitments to ensure collective self-defense. The involvement of the US or its remaining in NATO is conditioned by the fulfillment of conditions that have no support in valid documents, starting with the amount of spending on armaments, and ending with involvement in the war with Iran.

On his way to the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump did not confirm the clear commitment of the US to automatically defend allies (which Article 5 assumes) and left it "up to definition": "It depends on your definition. There's numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?"

The conflict with Iran has accelerated the catharsis of Donald Trump's relationship with NATO. According to The Telegraph, Trump is strongly considering the withdrawal of the United States from NATO, and the US might not come to NATO's aid. He criticizes allies for allegedly doing nothing to help the US in the war against Iran. He mocks NATO, which he says is a paper tiger, questioning its value if cooperation in the war with Iran does not work. Donald Trump's critical statements clearly link NATO commitments to the fact that the allies did not support the US military operation against Iran, which he perceives as a failure of the alliance. The White House said Trump believes NATO has been "tested and failed" during the war with Iran.

This contradicts the traditional notion that the commitment to mutual assistance is automatic within NATO. And it completely changes the conditions arising for the Czech Republic from membership in NATO. Indeed, if collective self-defense would be conditional on the fulfillment of conditions that would mean a fundamental threat to our country, whether economic (5% of GDP on armaments) or security (participation in a military attack that is against our interests), it is time to ask the question:

Is it beneficial for us to stay in NATO or does it increase our security risks?

For many in our country, this is a heretical question and they are not willing to consider anything other than the full membership of the Czech Republic in NATO, regardless of the consequences. For ODS, TOP 09, KDU-ČSL, STAN or ANO it is a matter of principle. But then he cannot explain how they pass between Scylla and Charybdis. How they intend to defend Czech national interests and comply with Donald Trump's pressure at the same time.

We also have a number of non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and so-called experts who have built their livelihoods on promoting the Czech Republic's membership in NATO and on finances linked to similar sources. European values ​​promoting Euro-Atlantic cooperation. Association for International Affairs (AMO) as an educational and analytical platform supporting NATO and EU integration. The Czech Atlantic Commission, an organization supporting NATO membership and defense cooperation, or the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI) as an analytical platform for security issues and NATO policy. With the active support of the Association of the Defense and Security Industry of the Czech Republic, military and veteran organizations such as the Union of Soldiers of the Czech Republic, as well as academic institutions, such as faculties of military and international security studies, which produce so-called NATO experts. Of course, we must not forget the strong media support. A significant part of commentators (e.g. Respekt, Hospodářské noviny, DeníkN, public media) presents NATO membership obligations as a guarantee of the Czech Republic's security. And publicists and analysts working in the mentioned think tanks are regularly and without opposition quoted in the mentioned media.

Who pays them? A confusing network of project grants and public tenders — including public and European sources, the European Commission, ministries and state institutions (e.g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Czech German Future Fund, International Visegrad Fund), foreign embassies (e.g. USA, Great Britain, Japan), other foundations and non-profit organizations (such as Atlas Network or National Endowment for Democracy) or corporate donors.

The most influential organizations include the Jagello 2000 association, whose declared goal is to directly increase public awareness of security policy, transatlantic relations and the Czech Republic's membership in NATO. It is commonly seen as an entity promoting pro-NATO positions through public diplomacy and educational projects. It supports the membership orientation of the Czech Republic and creates activities aimed at popularizing these topics (NATO Days, Information Center on NATO, portal natoaktual.cz). The association was founded on August 17, 2000 in Ostrava. Its founders were people from the region of North Moravia and Silesia, including Mirek Topolánek. The long-term chairman and one of the original founders is Zbyněk Pavlačík. One of the most important partners of Jagello 2000 is the CSG Group, which financially supported projects such as NATO Days in Ostrava. Jagello is also mentioned as a project partner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

Such a connected and strong lobby would have to be overcome by a responsible Czech statesman in order to legitimately begin to consider the possibilities of the existence of the Czech Republic without a military connection with NATO. The answer is simple:
Of course, it is possible to withdraw from NATO, just as it is possible not to be involved in its power structures.
Of course, it is possible to provide security on the basis of other mutual military assistance treaties.
And of course neutrality is a completely legitimate option.

None of this is the extreme or dangerous view that the pro-NATO lobby makes it out to be, labeling anyone who dares to think critically about the benefits and drawbacks of membership in an alliance whose basic added value - collective defense - is suddenly not self-evident.

NATO allows a member state to withdraw. Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty is key: a state can terminate the treaty, effective 1 year after notification to the US government. The Constitution of the Czech Republic does not explicitly regulate the procedure, but the accession to NATO (1999) was approved by the Parliament, logically the approval of the Parliament would also be expected for withdrawal. This would be followed by the President's signature. It is questionable whether a referendum would be necessary (it is not a general regulation. During the transitional period (1 year), there would be negotiations on withdrawal from the alliance structures, the regime of military bases, commitments and classified information. On a practical level, the Czech Republic would lose the debatable guarantee of collective defense (Article 5). After the transitional period, the membership expires automatically.

The president would formally terminate the contract, but his act would require the co-signature of the prime minister or an authorized member of the government. The Constitution does not explicitly say: "withdrawal from NATO requires the president's consent" and there is a minority opinion that the government could make the notification itself. But in practice it would lead to a constitutional dispute. Without formal approval from the president, the process would be legally challengeable. it is not clear how the competence dispute between the government and the president would end with the current political activism of the Constitutional Court. The willingness of President Pavel to submit to the will of the parliamentary majority or the results of the referendum cannot be relied on, and a constitutional amendment to explicitly regulate the procedure for withdrawing from NATO would be legally clean, but very time-consuming. However, the government could already, without the need to withdraw from NATO, proceed to limit military integration into NATO, i.e. to withdraw from the integrated military command, analogous to the position of France between 1966 and 2009.

We are not really suggesting that Babiš is de Gaulle, but the French precedent is worth a thorough analysis, without prejudice. Most of the steps are within the competence of the government, without the need for the involvement of the president, without changing contracts.

France did not withdraw from the North Atlantic Alliance in 1966 or denounce the North Atlantic Treaty. It took a unilateral political decision and a set of administrative steps, not a treaty change. She announced to the allies the withdrawal from the integrated military structure (Integrated Military Command) and gave them the request to remove all foreign troops and headquarters from French territory. It ended the subordination of French forces to Allied command in peace. French officers left SHAPE and other structures, NATO HQs moved (SHAPE from France to Belgium), allied troops left France, French forces were not pre-assigned to alliance plans. At the same time, France's full membership in NATO, its participation in political bodies (NATO Council), the commitment to collective defense (Article 5) and the possibility of ad hoc involvement in operations with allies were preserved.

For France, this step meant in practice autonomy, i.e. full operational sovereignty over its own armed forces and no automatic participation in alliance plans. President de Gaulle used this to build an independent force de frappe (nuclear deterrence outside NATO). The country could continue to cooperate with NATO on a case-by-case basis and participate in exercises or operations of its own choosing. The model was politically and financially costly, but symbolically powerful and led to the consolidation of presidential authority within the French Fifth Republic while also setting limits to American expansionism in Europe. President de Gaulle rejected the dominance of the United States in the Allied command and saw Europe as a community of sovereign states, not a US-dominated structure.

Another legitimate alternative for a country of the size and importance of the Czech Republic is neutrality. In international law, the status of a state in relation to armed conflicts means: non-participation in war, non-provision of military assistance to warring parties, prohibition of the use of territory for military operations by foreign states. Permanent neutrality represents a commitment for the future, not just in a particular war. What would the introduction of neutrality look like in Czech conditions?

There would be a withdrawal from alliance obligations, i.e. withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty) and revising our relationship with the European Union, which is not a military alliance but contains a defense clause. Compatibility with neutrality would need to be clarified politically and legally. By changing the Constitution, there would be an explicit declaration of permanent neutrality and a ban on joining military alliances. In addition to the need for a constitutional majority, supporters of permanent neutrality would probably have to convince citizens voting in a referendum. Subsequently, the Czech Republic would announce its neutrality to other states and ideally gain recognition from the great powers. In practice, this would mean a ban on foreign bases, a ban on the transit of foreign troops and the need to rebuild the defense doctrine (self-defense only).

The most famous neutral country is Switzerland. Its model is specific. Permanent and armed neutrality has been valid since 1815, recognized by the Congress of Vienna. The country has a strong and high-quality defense army and proves that neutrality is not synonymous with pacifism or weakness. It strictly does not participate in wars and has no alliance commitments. It cooperates to a limited extent in non-military areas, e.g. within the UN, and has a historically reticent stance on international sanctions as a means of coercion. Today, Switzerland is more flexible in this regard, but always with an emphasis on neutrality. It emphasizes territorial defense and great infrastructure for the survival of citizens and the state (shelters, logistics). Two key factors help in this: the patriotism of the citizens combined with the willingness to contribute their whole life to the defense of the country and, of course, the Alps.

Here the limits of hypothetical Czech neutrality according to the Swiss model are shown. We might develop patriotism and a willingness to defend our own country and not rely on allies, but as a landlocked country with weak natural barriers, we are dependent on the surrounding countries. Hard neutrality works better for states with a mountain or sea barrier. It is also associated with significantly higher defense spending and the need for autonomy in critical areas. There is also the EU factor, which can be in tension with "hard neutrality". There are indeed neutral states in the EU (Austria, Ireland), but their neutrality is softer than that of Switzerland.

You often forget that in our immediate neighborhood we have a country proving the possibility of existence without involvement in a NATO-type military alliance. Austrian-type neutrality is a politically and legally defined neutrality adopted after World War II and enshrined in the Constitution. In 1955, full sovereignty was returned to Austria together with a declaration of permanent neutrality (the so-called Staatsvertrag + Neutrality Act, §1): prohibition of participation in war, prohibition of joining military alliances, prohibition of placing foreign troops on Austrian territory. Austria must not be a member of a military alliance (e.g. NATO). Political participation in peace initiatives is possible (UN, EU, OSCE). Self-defense is necessary and forces focused on territorial protection, not on interventions abroad. Participation in peace operations and humanitarian missions within the UN is possible, as well as bilateral military cooperation, but without alliances. Austrian neutrality was not an obstacle to EU membership (1995).

Austrian-type neutrality is permanent, constitutionally guaranteed, militarily focused on defense, but with the possibility of active participation in international organizations and peacekeeping missions. This type of neutrality would have several advantages for the Czech Republic: it could remain in the EU, have certain military contacts, but avoid full NATO obligations. There would remain the option of voluntary participation in UN operations while retaining full sovereignty in defense policy. It is a legally and politically more realistic model compared to "hard Swiss neutrality". Disadvantage: you cannot rely on automatic guarantees of collective defense, but this disadvantage has currently become apparent even with full membership of the Czech Republic in NATO.

Above all, Czech citizens would have to decide on any option. The goal is not to favor one of them, but to show that, in addition to full involvement in NATO's military structures, there are other real and legitimate options for our country to ensure its own security. We are therefore not bound to bow to every demand of our stronger allies for fear of hopelessness. NATO membership is not a fetish, necessity or obligation. Let's reject intimidation and start thinking freely about our lives, our safety and all the possibilities that realistically exist.