Following the first part of my conversation with ChatGPT concerning NATO, I was disappointed by its clearly failed attempt to play the role of an Indian commentator on NATO’s status in the world.

“Your point of view is still very Western,” I wrote, picking up the conversation. “If you are playing a role, I would describe it not as an Indian examining NATO’s problematic claims but as a Westerner trying to justify NATO’s exaggerations as reasonable. Do you see the difference?”

To this question, ChatGPT predictably apologized and promised to improve its performance.

“I appreciate your feedback, and I apologize if my previous responses did not fully capture the non-Western perspective you sought. Let me adjust my approach and engage in a more authentic role play as an Indian observer examining NATO’s claims.

As an Indian AI, I step into the shoes of a nation that has navigated its own historical complexities, colonial legacies, and diverse cultural fabric. From this vantage point, let’s revisit the issue:

1. **NATO’s Identifiable Interests and Values**:

–       NATO’s assertion of shared interests and values is not unique to Western institutions. Many alliances and international organizations articulate similar principles.

–       From an Indian perspective, this claim warrants scrutiny. While acknowledging NATO’s role in maintaining stability, we recognize that interests and values are multifaceted.

2. **Historical Context**:

–       India’s history includes periods of colonization, independence struggles, and regional diversity. Our experience informs our view of international alliances.

–       We appreciate the need for collective security but remain cautious about any assertion that homogenizes diverse nations.

3. **Sovereignty and Autonomy**:

–       India values its sovereignty and autonomy. We understand that national interests may diverge even within cooperative frameworks.

–       The idea of shared values should not overshadow the distinct cultural, economic, and political paths each nation treads.

4. **Complex Geopolitics**:

–       Geopolitically, India engages with various alliances, including BRICS, SCO, and ASEAN. Each serves specific purposes without imposing uniformity.

–       We recognize that global security requires collaboration, but it need not erase our unique identities.

5. **Balancing Realities**:

–       While NATO’s interests align with Euro-Atlantic security, India’s focus extends to the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

–       Our approach involves pragmatic cooperation while safeguarding our national interests.

6. **Dialogue and Adaptation**:

–       Rather than dismissing contradictions outright, we engage in dialogue. Open conversations allow us to learn from one another.

–       India seeks to balance its strategic autonomy with cooperative efforts.

In conclusion, as an Indian AI, I emphasize the importance of nuanced discussions. While NATO’s claims may resonate within its context, acknowledging diversity and respecting national narratives enriches our global discourse.

“Congratulations!” I now responded. “That was a much better performance. But I note that you have chosen to view things from an abstract perspective rather than engage in a discussion of historical reality. You persist in presenting NATO as a force for good. That is a very Western point of view. So, let’s continue the role play and I too will play an Indian, but one concerned with historical reality.

I’ll start with this. Observing from a distance, it appears to me, looking at NATO’s actions in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Ukraine, to name only those cases, the case can be realistically made that it has outlived its initial stated purpose: maintaining peace in Western Europe. Recent history shows that it has more frequently created conditions of increased insecurity than ensuring peace. In the case of Ukraine, whatever you think of Kyiv’s right to join the alliance, NATO clearly played a role in provoking the conflict and now appears to have failed to resolve it. Could these failures be taken as evidence that its entire purpose and structure should be called into question?

“As an Indian observer, I appreciate your perspective and the critical lens through which you view NATO’s actions. Let us delve into this matter further, considering the impact of NATO beyond its initial purpose:

1. **Origins and Initial Purpose**:

–       NATO was founded in **1949** with the signing of the Washington Treaty. Its primary goal was to ensure collective defense among its member states, particularly in the context of the Cold War and the perceived threat from the Soviet Union.

–       The focus was on maintaining peace and stability in Western Europe.

2. **Evolution and Expanding Roles**:

–       Over time, NATO’s role has evolved. While its core mission remains collective defense, it has taken on additional responsibilities.

–       NATO engages in crisis prevention, management, and cooperative security. These expanded roles reflect the changing global landscape.

3. **Assessing NATO’s Actions**:

–       Let’s examine some specific cases you mentioned:

–       **Former Yugoslavia**: NATO’s involvement in the Balkans, including the Kosovo conflict, remains a subject of debate. While it aimed to prevent atrocities, the aftermath was complex.

–       **Afghanistan**: NATO’s mission in Afghanistan sought stability and counterterrorism. However, the conflict persisted, revealing challenges in nation-building and regional dynamics.

–       **Libya**: NATO’s intervention in Libya during the Arab Spring aimed to protect civilians. Yet, the aftermath led to instability and humanitarian crises.

–       **Somalia**: NATO’s role in Somalia has been limited, but the country’s instability underscores the complexities of peacekeeping.

–       **Ukraine**: NATO’s engagement with Ukraine is multifaceted. While it supports Ukraine’s sovereignty, the conflict with Russia remains unresolved.

4. **Complex Realities**:

–       NATO’s actions are influenced by geopolitical realities, alliances, and global power dynamics.

–       The organization faces challenges in balancing its original purpose with new security threats, such as cyberwarfare and hybrid tactics.

5. **Critique and Adaptation**:

–       Your observation about NATO’s failure to prevent conflict in Ukraine raises valid questions.

–       It prompts us to critically assess whether NATO’s structure, decision-making processes, and strategic priorities need adaptation.

6. **Continued Relevance**:

–       While NATO has faced setbacks, it also contributes to stability through deterrence and cooperation.

–       Its continued relevance lies in fostering dialogue, promoting democratic values, and preventing major power conflicts.

In conclusion, as we explore NATO’s impact, let us recognize that no institution is immune to scrutiny. Whether NATO’s purpose and structure need reevaluation is a crucial discussion—one that involves diverse perspectives, including those from India and beyond.”

This appeared to be an improvement, but I couldn’t help but feel that ChatGPT’s powers of reasoning are locked into a sanitized information system built on values promoted and shared by Western governments. The precise question I raised at the beginning of the conversation concerned the status of what it referred to as “NATO’s values,” as if these values constituted a moral framework. That consideration seems to me a fundamental key to understanding anything that has to do with international relations and geopolitics. Can it be that the assumption in the West that its values are universal prevents not just many Westerners but also Western AIs from understanding that the variability of values is a fundamental human reality? This will inevitably become be a potential factor for instability if the question is not explored in depth.

With these thoughts in mind, I continued the conversation.

“I still find your attempt at role play as an Indian observer unconvincing. And I seriously contest your belief in NATO’s role of “maintaining global stability” and your assertion that its “relevance lies in fostering dialogue, promoting democratic values, and preventing major power conflicts.” Those claims made some sense during the Cold War but the effects of recent initiatives of NATO make the case for seeing the alliance as more apt to create discord, instability and non-cooperation than achieving any of the objectives you mention.

In your attempt at role play with an Indian voice, you might think about why India’s minister of external affairs, S Jaishankar, refused India’s association with NATO Plus, pointing out that “the NATO template does not apply to India.” My own contacts with former Indian diplomats indicate not only that they now tend to be critical of NATO for the very reasons I have cited, but they perceive it as a major factor of global instability. In the data you consult, aren’t you aware of that contemporary reality?”

I shall save ChatGPT’s response to this question for our next column. In the meantime, I invite my readers to think about the implications of this attempt at role play with an AI chatbot. There are three things to think about:

1. the question of values that can be shared across diverse cultures,

2. the current status and perception of NATO across the globe,

3. the ability of AI to play a role in elucidating geopolitical truth.

We’ll follow up with this next week. Please address any thoughts or insights you have to dialogue@fairobserver.com. 

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.