- Some argue that NATO is not just a military alliance, but also a political organization. To what extent is this valid argument?
NATO is perhaps one of the most continuing and complex political and military organization on the global field in the modern times. All over the six decades of existence, it has been thoroughly evaluated, studied, analyzed and commented upon, however many theorists are still determining its operations.
Both these scenarios justified the establishment of NATO that could deal effectively with the Soviet threat as well as the USA’s dominance of the region. The European countries believed that a powerful Western Europe should maintain its distinctiveness, and this could be done if it did not become ‘American’. Therefore, the European countries, especially France wanted to change transatlantic relationships between lines with the principles of independence and alliance. Accordingly, the USA and Western Europe countries would remain allies; however, their relationship would be changed eventually when the latter would assume the core responsibilities in the political, economic and military fields.
Politically and militarily, NATO outlined its role in the pre-war US-UK Alliance Charter 6 for its fundamental doctrine in addition to the 1948 Treaty ratified in Belgium, which laid the fount of the Western European Union (WEU) and the consequent defense arrangement. This military treaty was created with the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, which made an obligation on member states to regard an armed attack against one state to be an attack against all states. The membership of the NATO has now grown to 26 states.
As a result of the threat of USSR invasion of Western Europe was believed to be real, throughout the Cold War era, the nuclear weapons were integrated into the NATO agenda. Hence, there existed a strategic basis for the Alliance scrutiny for the possible Russian invasion, however, also a clear strategic need to ensure that NATO maintained a strong structure to deal the threat both politically and militarily.
Accordingly, NATO is unique in both its application of political and military decision making. The Alliance is headed by its Secretary General who works at both the ministerial as well as operational level. NATO has exercised effective political power and decision-making all over the world in terms of political and military processes.
The above explanation of NATO’s institutionalized structure shows how the Allied political objectives are realized. There is definitely a harmonizing set of standards and procedures by which it functions. The major norms are achieving a consensus decision in which the shared will of all the NATO members are considered. This consensus decision making happens with as a result of intense deliberations, which is regularly convened at various levels. The decision making process is further supplemented by consultations within the partner countries. Consequently, both the constitution and organizational makeup of NATO are strong political and formal and resemble in some manners a global Alliance that appeared more than a military body.
Post-Cold War Vision
There are three challenging visions for NATO in the post-Cold War Europe. The first vision considers that the Alliance continues to focus on collective defense of Europe. Secondly, NATO as a Europe’s collective security organization should guarantee security not only for its existing and prospective members, however for all the countries in the European-Atlantic region. Thirdly, the NATO should reach both functionally and geographically past Europe and use appropriate security and political means to protect against dangers facing European and American interests, wherever these might be endangered. Given that none of the above-mentioned visions for NATO is expected to gain widespread support from member countries, it is argued that NATO’s future purpose must be to develop security and stability all over the Euro-Atlantic region by offering future memberships to those European countries who want to join the organization and fulfill the vital political and military standards of membership and, secondly, applying the rules, standards, and guidelines that deal with relationships amongst the European states. Similarly, NATO’s complex and multi-faced flexible command hierarchy, the dynamics of its forces, and the shared defense and emergency planning offers the member countries a unique base for joint military activities, to safeguard the European territory, apply European rules and standards, and eliminate the impending threats common to all NATO members.
Throughout the Cold War era, NATO was considered as a military alliance with a political base. However, it got united as an Alliance of countries that, generally, focused to support the principles of democracy and individual liberty of the countries and tried to prevent and, if needed, defend against a possible aggression by the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies. However, after the conclusion Cold War the Alliance should reverse its priorities and preferences. It must now have a political alliance with a military base. Its major purpose must be to expand its membership of the community of democratic countries all over the European continent at the same time offering its member countries with the military foundation to carry out joint military action to protect their common territory, traditions, and interests.
- Why did NATO not disappear after the end of the Cold War?
The deliberations over NATO’s role following the conclusion of the Cold War primarily concentrate on its espousal to the new security issues as well as the reformation of its military and political composition. Whilst the NATO’s critical presumption regarding the adaptive logic of NATO's post-Cold war policies have a tendency to underestimate the capability of the Alliance to dynamically mold the security environment in the European Continent by means of its dilating security political requirements and the portrayal of its organizational identity.
Following the early uncertainties and reservations of the Cold War, it is now generally believed that NATO is now considered as the key security organization in Europe. On the other hand, the EU, the OSCE, and even the UN, NATO is thought by its members and non-members countries similarly as go-to body in those instances where the use of intimidation and force is thought to be necessary all over the Europe. The Alliance got this position as a result of improved peace on the European continent, though slowly. NATO has proved to be more skilled in fulfilling the requirements and aspirations of various European countries who want to become an important component of the continent. Whilst the European Union focused on increasing its membership by providing memberships to richer European countries, NATO on the other hand, welcomed some poorer east European countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to join the Alliance at the same time allowing the membership to all eligible European countries.
Despite NATO’s important position as a major political and military body, the primary aim of the Alliance in the post-Cold war world continues to be debated hotly. The members of the Alliance whether old and new alike have yet to fully decide on what the NATO created for an impending threat from the USSR should do now when that threat has disappeared. Then again, whether the NATO Alliance should develop security and stability all over the European region, welcoming new members in its fold who fulfill the basic requirements of market democracy i.e. capitalism, the enforcement of definite laws, and obligation to decide their internal and external matters through peaceful means. Irrespective of how NATO countries respond to these core issues regarding the Alliance's aims, the definite policy decision concerning its new strategic role, its command hierarchy, and the range of its future growth will essentially be at variance.
For more than a decade, NATO has effectively avoided delineating its future objectives; rather it focused on what immediate steps should be taken to adjust to the new, post-Cold war security scenario. Internally, NATO has altered its command hierarchy to help the more flexible use of NATO military potential comprise of member countries as well with non-member countries. Emergency planning of NATO has changed from resisting a major conventional attack in Europe to organizing military forces for various peace operations varying from rescue and relief to peacekeeping and more comprehensive peacemaking operations. Externally, the Alliance has invited new members and supported them to lend support to its meetings and workshops. Moreover, NATO has also offered its skills in military planning, defense budgeting, and political control over armed forces within those countries that belonged to the Warsaw Pact.
Despite the fact the claims of NATO’s skeptics that the Alliance has no defined objectives in the new Europe after and that the Alliance developed remarkably all over the four decades of the Cold War and a decade more for post-Cold war adjustment is wrong, the assertion that NATO has yet to delineate its core objectives in the new Europe is definitely true.
As NATO member countries, deliberate upon the details of particular policy decisions regarding the nature and scope of the Alliance’s new strategies and its open-door commitment to enlargement, it is evidently apparent that for significant decisions to be taken on these issues, the Alliance’s future objectives must first be delineated. Finally, the Alliance must define the military objectives and operations for which NATO should be prepared and which, consequently, should determine the military capabilities of member countries. With these objectives in mind the Alliance should continue to expand its membership and political, military, and other guidelines will help in the process of selecting new members. Moreover, it can prove NATO’s long-term significance in the post-Cold War Europe, as an Alliance that is capable to fulfill the challenges and take advantage of the various economic and political potential the twenty first century has to offer.
Conclusions
Generally, the NATO organization shows a major scale of political, military, economic, and cultural integration. Its strong military composition, supported by a complex network of civilian operation and motivated by ever-growing strategic operations, offers an effective response to the future security challenges. Moreover, NATO alliance has a deep civil society support to help realizing its goals. Such integration is indicative of both the inherent strength as well as the resilience of the NATO alliance in the face of changing conditions.
Biblliography
Charles de Gaulle_Emmanuel Pelaez meeting, MAEF, CM, CD, vol. 375. 8 February 1963.
Charles de Gaulle_George Brown meeting, MAEF, CM, CDM, vol. 385. 16 December 1966.
de Gaulle, Charles. Discours et Messages, vol. 4, press conference, 14 January 1963.
Herve´ Alphand, L’E´ tonnement d’eˆtre: journal, 1939_1973 Paris: Fayard, diary entry 26 August 1963.
Maurice Couve de Murville, speech to l’Assemble´e Nationale, FNSP, CM Carton 1. 12 June 1963.
Maurice Couve de Murville_John F. Kennedy meeting, MAEF, CM, CD, vol. 376. 7 October 1963.
