NATO and UN: A Round Squirrel Problem?

The concept of navigating complex environments by focusing on broad structures while avoiding specific entities has been highlighted in recent discourse. The phrase 'Round the tree, yes, but not round the squirrel' encapsulates this strategy, suggesting a preference for dealing with established, static frameworks rather than unpredictable, dynamic actors.

This approach is particularly relevant when analyzing the operational methodologies of major international organizations such as NATO and the UN. By adhering to the 'tree'—representing treaties, borders, and formal agreements—these bodies can maintain stability and consensus. However, avoiding the 'squirrel'—representing non-state actors, rapid geopolitical shifts, or specific humanitarian crises—may lead to gaps in effectiveness and responsiveness. This summary outlines the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a strategic posture in global governance.

The adage 'Round the tree, yes, but not round the squirrel' serves as a potent allegory for the constraints and priorities of modern international diplomacy. In this context, the tree represents the foundational structures of global order: treaties, international law, and established borders. These are the elements around which diplomatic circles are easily drawn.

Conversely, the squirrel represents the volatile, fast-moving elements of international affairs. These can include rogue states, terrorist organizations, or sudden refugee crises. Dealing with the 'squirrel' requires agility and often unilateral or rapid multilateral action, which can be difficult for large bureaucracies to coordinate.

For organizations like the United Nations and NATO, the choice to circle the tree rather than the squirrel is often a matter of political survival. Consensus is easier to achieve when focusing on static, agreed-upon principles rather than dynamic, contentious realities.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has historically operated on the principle of collective defense, a concept that firmly anchors the alliance to the 'tree' of its founding treaty, Article 5. This article guarantees that an attack on one member is an attack on all, creating a static but powerful defensive perimeter.

However, modern threats often resemble the 'squirrel'—unpredictable and originating from non-traditional sources. Cyber warfare, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric threats challenge the alliance's ability to remain strictly 'round the tree.'

The strategic dilemma for NATO involves balancing its commitment to traditional defense with the need to address these agile threats. If the alliance focuses too heavily on the tree, it risks being outmaneuvered by the squirrel. If it chases the squirrel too aggressively, it risks fracturing the consensus required to maintain the alliance itself.

The United Nations (UN) operates under a broad mandate to maintain international peace and security, a mission that requires navigating the complex 'forest' of global politics. The UN's structure, particularly the Security Council, is designed to move deliberately, often circling problems rather than pouncing on them.

This deliberate pace is the UN's version of staying 'round the tree.' It allows for diplomacy, sanctions, and resolutions—processes that are slow but inclusive. However, in humanitarian crises where the 'squirrel' is starving or under fire, this slowness can be viewed as a fatal flaw.

For the UN, the challenge is that the 'squirrel' often moves faster than a resolution can be passed. The organization must therefore decide whether to reform its processes to catch the squirrel or to continue reinforcing the tree of international law, hoping that the squirrel eventually runs into it.

The tension between the 'tree' and the 'squirrel' defines the current era of international relations. While the stability of the tree—represented by NATO and the UN—is essential for long-term order, the agility of the squirrel represents the immediate needs of a changing world.

Future success for these organizations will likely depend on their ability to do both: maintain their foundational circles while developing the capability to address specific, fast-moving threats. The metaphor suggests that ignoring the squirrel entirely is a risk, but losing sight of the tree is a catastrophe.

Ultimately, the phrase 'Round the tree, yes, but not round the squirrel' remains a cautionary observation. It warns that while structure is necessary, an inability to engage with dynamic realities may render even the strongest trees irrelevant in a forest full of agile life.