{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01594896331738437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006379585326953748, 'mean_word_length': 4.976190476190476, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Some Thoughts on the NATO Position in Relation to the Iraqi Crisis

NATO is a collective self-defence regional organization that was established at the time of the Cold War, and the end of East–West confrontation gave rise to the debate about its future role. In the 1999 Washington summit a new strategic concept was promulgated, according to which NATO was to act as a collective security organization as well. The community of interest previously represented by the Eastern bloc has not been unequivocally replaced by a new one. Hence there is room for national interest to play greater role in the decision-making by the alliance. This decision-making is based on consensus, which is incompatible with assertions of strictly national policy. The institutional crisis within NATO in early 2003 was largely due to the transfer to within NATO of the disagreement among its member states in the UN Security Council over dealing with Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. The crisis was ultimately resolved, but it exposed the serious limitations of the NATO decision-making process. While claims about the likelihood of NATO's survival seem premature, the recent institutional crisis may be a legitimate ground for considering institutional reform.