The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An Alliance without an enemy?
Johan Olsson
International Institutions (POLSCI 440)
Hawaii Pacific University
December, 8, 1994
BACKGROUND:
One of the most talked-about international institutions is the North Atlantic treaty Organization (NATO). It is one of the oldest institutions, and also the most military powerful in the world. The original purpose of NATO was the deterring of potential Soviet aggression in Europe during the coldest era in the cold war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established on Apr. 4, 1949, by representatives from 12 nations (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Greece and Turkey joined later in 1952 and the Federal Republic of Germany joined treaty in 1955. Finally, Spain in 1982. NATO at first had no military structure. The Korean War, however, which began in June 1950, was first perceived by Western European countries as part of a worldwide Communist offensive, and this perception led to the establishment of a NATO military force. The treaty paved the way for the first peacetime alliance participated in by the United States.The key article of the North Atlantic Treaty is Article 5: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them...shall be considered an attack against them all."1 This article pretty much spells out the original purpose of this once defensive international institution. However, political changes identified by the end of the cold war has changed NATO's original intention and purpose, and the institution is presently concentrating on promoting political, social, and economic ties among the members.
The chief policy-making body of NATO is the North Atlantic Council, which meets in Brussels (it met in Paris until 1967) and provides for intergovernmental consultation. Each member nation provides a permanent representative to the council, and these officials meet at least once a week to discuss contemporary issues. In addition, the North Atlantic Council meets twice a year in a ministerial session and in some cases heads-of-state session. The council employs a highly international staff. In order to diversify NATO's operations, the council has established a number of committees which deal with matters such as; defense planning, nuclear affairs, economic issues, and cultural and environmental problems. The most powerful committee is presently the Defense Planning Committee (DPC).
The Defense Planning Committee (DPC) is composed of senior military representatives from each member nation (except Iceland, which has no military force, and France, which withdrew from the integrated military structure in 1966, but is still a member of the council). The representatives recommends appropriate actions and contingency plans to the North Atlantic Council. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE), is located in Brussels.
This paper will focus on the effectiveness of the non-militant cooperation that is promoted today within NATO. The future of NATO has been widely discussed. Will this once-so-powerful international institution be able to redefine its goals and purposes now when the Cold War has ended ? I believe that the political importance of NATO will ensure the existence of the organization. However, there is a potential risk that NATO is going to get dwarfed by the European Union and the United Nations.
NEW STAGE: A CONTINENT IN TRANSITION.
Not long ago, when the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were all collapsing, many experts thought NATO had served its purpose and its demise would soon follow. The cold war was history, and political tension on the European continent had dramatically decreased by the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization in 1991. NATO's "red" aggressor in the East was no longer a potential military threat to the alliance. Now, the East Europeans are demanding for protection from NATO against primarily Russia and Ukraine.In addition, the area of contention has shifted from the former Warsaw Treaty Organization to conflicts in former Yugoslavia, which may foreshadow what is yet to come in former Eastern Europe. It is possible that the end of the political and military tension in the European continent between East and West simply marked the beginning of a new area of conflicts. For instance ethnic wars between newly independent nation states in Europe. Furthermore, diplomatic tension between Russia and USA may create another phase in the cold war. According to a respected former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, "There are two ways you can tell when a man is lying. One is when he says he can drink champagne all night and not get drunk. The other is when he says he understands Russians."2 In the past it was the strength of the Soviet Union that drove U.S. foreign policy, today it governed by the weakness of Russia.
Moreover, potential for political conflicts in Europe is moving from military forces to economic forces. The emerging importance of the European Union (EU), will economically contain most of Western Europe. EU's customs union has already caused turmoil in recent GATT talks in Uruguay, and may cause a cooling effect on U.S./EU relations. Note that all of the NATO members are also member states of the EU, with four exceptions; Canada, Iceland, Norway and Turkey. Many of the purposes of NATO directly integrates with primary issues of the EU.
POLITICAL CHANGES.
In the changing nature of the political atmosphere in primarily Europe, NATO will have to redefine its Purpose of existence. The largest emphasis should be placed on maintaining political and economic stability between the U.S. and Europe. The conference on security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE) which have 33 European states as well as the united States and Canada as members, is a logical mechanism for exercising NATO's political role in the European continent.The United States desperately needs Europe as a trading partner. Europe accounts for approximately 58 percent of all US exports. NATO could easily become an alternative to GATT in resolving economic issues. Such an economic forum fostered by NATO would be a direct link of negotiation between the members. However, since all but four NATO member nations are members of the EU, NATO could create a healthy economic forum between NAFTA (Canada, Mexico and USA) and the EU.
In addition, NATO would promote US influence in the European Union, and insure that the US would have a foot in the "fortress of Europe." The EU nation states appear to find this a bit disturbing. One of the reasons behind the 1992 Maastricht Treaty is fear and mistrust of the USA.3 Some European leaders, led by the French President Mitterrand, would like to see the US and NATO roles in the defense of Europe ended.4 Furthermore, the US believes that France is trying to neutralize NATO by creating trade barriers and by actively participating in the formations of the Eurocorps, a military alliance independent of NATO. "This absorb independent European defense force represents the desires of France and Germany to turn the EU into a sovereign superstate."5
FUTURE EXPANSION OF NATO.
The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the former USSR has signaled a end to the Cold War and the threat to the security of the West. With the disappearance of its traditional enemies, NATO is presently redefining its role as the defender of Europe. Although the Soviet threat no longer exists, the nationalistic wars that have moved throughout most of Eastern Europe have created a new threat to the security of Europe.I believe that the expansion of NATO is crucial to ensuring security and reducing the potential for conflict in Europe. NATO should be reorganized, with rules for membership including a commitment to democracy. The U.S. and the EU must be open to the East, and assisting Russia in its struggle for operational democracy should be top priority. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council is an effective tool in addressing security issues and ensure cooperative relations among European nations. The primary candidates for a NATO membership are presently Hungary, Poland, and finally the Czech Republic.6 Ethnic and national tensions are today significant in these nations.
Moreover, NATO membership has little to do with the possibility of Russian troops re containing Eastern Europe. The primary candidates do not see NATO as a defense against a possible Russian attack, but the key reason for why they want to be in NATO is to protect their own democracies. If East Europe is kept out of NATO, there is a possibility that the nations will form their own strategic alliance, complete with a new arms race. Nationalism and ethnic conflict have already led to two World Wars in Europe, and we certainly do not need to confront another cold war situation between East and West.
It is believed that NATO would be able to help these nations on the way to establish fully functioning democracies. "West Germany wasn't a stable democracy before it was allowed into NATO, belonging to the alliance helped it become one."7 I believe that NATO membership is more important for internal stability that as a military shield against Russia. However, there are some negative aspects to geographic containment of NATO.
Recent interest from former Eastern European nations in joining NATO has been met with some resistance from the USA. The primary reason offered by U.S. officials for keeping the East Europeans out of NATO is the fear of provoking Russia's nationalists at Head-of-state, Boris Yeltsin's expense. Yeltsin promoted NATO expansion in August 1993, but Russia's military, to which he appears to be beholden, forced a retreat. Moscow's general could be worried about an increase in the Western sphere of influence in Europe, but they may also be considering the option of reclaiming the nations Mikhail Gorbachev set free in 1989. Yeltsin now says that enlarging NATO would be a hostile act. "Yeltsin says drawing a new line in Europe that shifts the Iron curtain back to Russia's borders."8
I believe that the preferred solution of these nations is full NATO memberships. This is an ambition that could mesh with the West's desire to find a post-cold war role for the alliance and a new world order that works. Other critics argue that the USA should adopt a policy of strategic independence instead of trying to contain Cold-War allies under the NATO umbrella. "Strategic independence is a policy that defines vital security interests, avoids alliances with vague long-term obligations and resists ambitious international goals."9
POSSIBLE COOPERATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
One of the most realistic future partner to NATO would be The Western European Union (WEU) which was formed in 1955 as a result of the failure of the European Defense Community (EDC). The WEU has followed the work of NATO. I believe that there is a string case for improving coordination between the two international institution. The objective of WEU is to "build up WEU in stages as the defense component of the European Union. To this end, WEU is prepared, at the request of the European Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the union which have defense implications."10 Furthermore, WEU may become an important link between NATO and the European union. It is possible for WEU to develop further the close working links between WEU and NATO, since most of the members are also members of the European Union. If NATO chooses not too cooperate with WEU, it is possible that NATO will be abolished, since WEU easily could take NATO's place. Note that the two institutions do have similar goals and objectives.In addition, some people argue that an European alliance without the USA could be more powerful. I do not believe that the US can be a "European power" without dominating European policy. Perhaps, one of NATO's weakness is the USA is a member. However, one may question if the European Union and WEU can become a world power without the support from the USA.
Moreover, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council may be the institution which is best fit to cope with the problems that is facing the European today and in the future. Will NATO retain its role as West Europe's sole protector against aggression from the East, or will this institution become a UN in Europe? NATO surely has the military power necessary to enforce decisions made in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council.
CONCLUSION.
Recent developments in the crisis in former Yugoslavia have supported that NATO is still the most powerful Atlantic alliance on the European continent. Active intervention in the conflict started on the 20th of November 1994, and has, until now, been able to effectively coordinate its efforts with the United Nations. I believe that there is a future for NATO, even though the institution has not got any principal enemies (such as the threat from the former Warsaw pact). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization can effectively coordinate its efforts, and its military power with the activities of the Western European Union and with the European Union. However, it is very likely that North American involvement in the European continent is not going to be as appreciated in the future, as it has been in the past. Most realistically, the USA will always be a leading power in NATO, since it has the military and the financial resources to make NATO as powerful as it is today.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. "A ghost in the feast: America and Europe." The Economist February 19 1994 (21-24)
3. "The French and Germans: comrades in arms." Newsweek October 28 1991 (45-49)
4. "Time for a NATO with a new mission." Aviation Weel & Space Technology August 30 1993 (66)
5. Forbes, Malcolm Jr. "Why we need NATO- still." Forbes October 25 1993 (26)
6. Geipel, Gary L. "Why we still need NATO," The American Legion July 1992 (30-34)
7. Knight, Robin. "Is it a wrap for NATO?" U.S. News & World Report January 10 1994
8. Nelan, Bruce. "Should NATO move East?" Time November 15 1993 (68- 70)
9. Pierre, Andrew. "The United States and the new Europe." Current History November 1990 (353-356)
10. Rocard, Michael. "Is France trying to torpedo NATO?" Researcher August 21 1992 (729)
11. Steel, Ronald. "NATO's final mission." Foreign Policy Fall 1989
12. Templeman, John. "Does the new Europe need a new NATO?" Business Week May 7 1990 (51)
13. Weinberger, Caspar W. "Maastricht and Anti-Americanism." Forbes October 26, 1992 (35)
1"A ghost in the feast: America and Europe." The Economist February 19 1994 (21)
2Templeman, John. "Does the new Europe need a new NATO?" Business Week May 7 1990 (51)
3Weinberger, Caspar W. "Maastricht and Anti-Americanism." Forbes October 26, 1992 (35)
4Rocard, Michael. "Is France trying to torpedo NATO?" Researcher August 21 1992 (729)
5"The French and Germans: comrades in arms." Newsweek October 28 1991 (46)
6Nelan, Bruce. "Should NATO move East?" Time November 15 1993 (68)
7Forbes, Malcolm Jr. "Why we need NATO- still." Forbes October 25 1993 (26)
8Nelan, Bruce. "Should NATO move East?" Time November 15 1993 (68- 70)
9Pierre, Andrew. "The United States and the new Europe." Current History November 1990 (354)
10Geipel, Gary L. "Why we still need NATO," The American Legion July 1992 (33)