Should NATO continue to exist?

As prime minister Stephen Harper meets with his North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies this week, the future of the 63 year old military organization is very much up in the air.

Inside the meeting the leaders were looking to reinvent NATO, this time in the midst of shrinking military budgets. The new buzzword, which Canada is touting, is "smart defence" or the idea of doing more with less.

Outside the meetings, thousands of protesters called for the end of alliance.

Is the alliance even relevant anymore?

A case to disband NATO:

During the Cold War, NATO had a core purpose: defending central Europe against the Soviet Union. The disappearance of that core purpose weakens NATO and the members' resolve.

Last summer, outgoing U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said NATO was facing "collective military irrelevance."

Gates noted the alliance's inefficiencies and emphasized the inadequate funds NATO gets from most European members. He said the U.S. share of NATO spending had reached 75 per cent.

Gates, a veteran of the Cold War era, said that without a change in these trends, the next generation of American leaders might not consider it worth investing in the NATO alliance.

A case to keep NATO:

In an interview with CBC News last summer, Canada's former ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker said NATO should be kept as an "insurance policy."

"It's something you need to have in case the Russians come back, or in case something else emerges," he said.

"There is a need for the international community to be able to respond militarily. It doesn't have to be NATO that does that, but the fact that NATO exists, that its members are capable of acting effectively with each other, because they've trained together and they have comparable and compatible equipment, means that they are a step ahead of other institutions. That's useful."

Do you think NATO should continue to exist? Share your thoughts in the comments below.