The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 1949 in Washington DC, and
ratified by its twelve member states. The treaty was clearly a response
to the growing military threat that appeared by the communist ideology
and military power of the Soviet Union, at the same time, the treaty was
also viewed by some members as an insurance policy, provided mainly by
the United States against the resurgent Germany.
This essay discusses
the role of NATO; further it will examine why NATO should not be
dissolved, and will discuss Libya as case study. This essay also
discusses why NATO should be dissolved, and will draw upon the war on
terror in Afghanistan. This essay will conclude that NATO does not have
much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold and the
Collapsed of the Soviet Union, therefore, it's not imperative for NATO
to maintain alliance.
NATO was founded on the grounds that the organisation will protect
its members, but mainly from the military threat of Soviet Unions, Lord
Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General clearly defined NATO; "to
keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down (William:
2008, 348)." Ismay argument demonstrates that the international
institution was founded mainly because of the of military threat of
Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO's former Secretary General Willy
Clases stated that:
"it could build on its past, moving
to establish closer ties with Central and East European states; deepen
its political , economic and social ties with the United states; build a
better relationship with Russia and certain Mediterranean and North
African states; and work with regional and international organisation to
ensure the stability of Europe its neighbours ( MaCalla:199,445)
Clases
statement shows very strong aims of NATO to survive and will expand as
global cop; continue its task to safeguard its member states;
nevertheless, scepticism remains about its future. NATO's former
Secretary General, Manfred Worner stated that "The treaty of Washington
of 1949, nowhere mentions the Soviet Union" (MaCalla: 1996, 446). Worner
argument reveals that military Threat of Soviet Union was not the main
reason; however, NATO has wider international prospects.
At
the end of the Cold War, it was perceived that the absence of a
compelling external threat, NATO members would no longer see any
compelling reason to maintain the alliance, and it would soon appear to
be ineffective and incompetent security organisation. Waltz (William:
2008, 349) argued that the:
"alliances will tend to be
less robust in a multipolar world because major powers will possess more
options as their numbers increase... prudence suggests that existing
alliance commitments can no longer be taken for granted (
William:2008,350)".
However, Walt argument proved to
have minimal effect on the organisation. NATO flourished at least in
some ways since following Cold War, and was broadly engaged in extensive
combat operations, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and recently in
Libya.
Adler and Barnett (William et al: 2000) argued
that persistence of NATO clearly demonstrates that the international
community posses great challenges of security relations than neo realism
has traditionally allowed. Their statement shows that NATO has survived
many security challenges over time and continued to prosper as a
security management institution in 21th century, on the other hand, the
emergence of non-state actors brought massive challenges for the states
security, states are now fighting non- state actors, such as Al-Qaida
and Taliban, NATO responded efficiently by engaging on the War on Terror
in Afghanistan, training and developing Afghan National Security
Forces, and ensuring partnership agreement to continue military support
to the country beyond 2014, after the withdrawal of NATO soldiers from
the country. Thus, NATO's interest in promoting peace and stability has
not only benefited its members but also wider international community.
NATO
should be dissolved clearly it achieved its purpose and outlived its
usefulness. Wallander and Keohane ( William et al:2000) argued that NATO
is no longer an alliance, its purpose and operations has changed over
time and it has transformed in to a regional collective security
arrangement or security management institution. Their argument
demonstrates that NATO still have great importance in the region,
nonetheless, its aims have changed and there is still security threats
for its members, but there is still many global security challenges
facing NATO member states, this could be the fight on terror,
environmental security challenges or the remnants of the Soviet Union,
Russia, thus, these challenges keep NATO active and should therefore not
be dissolved. NATO as security management institution take human rights
and humanitarian intervention into account, NATO efficiently responded
to crisis in Libya. The NATO humanitarian intervention in Libya was
legitimate, because it was authorised by UN Security Council, the main
purpose of this operation was to save human lives and it was successful.
The
consequences of a dissolved NATO will not help the wider international
order, this is because NATO is also an enforcement arm of the UN
Security Council, helped to combat Terrorism, WMD and Cyber Warfare, on
the other hand, NATO members states shares democratic values, William et
al (2000:358) argued that NATO persists because it's member states
shared democratic norms and identities. This shows that democracy is the
common language in these countries, and therefore, they can communicate
very well and identify their common enemies and share military burden
in order to make each ally stronger than individual part. The North
Atlantic treaty organisation was set up to defend against the threat of
Soviet aggression, however, today it's viewed as increasingly
dysfunctional, and still searching for a new role two decades after the
collapsed of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War (
Kashmeri:2010).
William (2008) argued that NATO has had
little effect on counter-terrorism efforts. Williams statement points
to the inability of NATO on combating terrorism. It could be argued that
NATO was failed to stop Terrorists attacks on their members states,
NATO was incapable to stop major terrorist attacks of 911, 7/7 London
bombing or Madrid attacks, on the other hand, NATO did not achieved much
of its goals on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, NATO failed to
eliminate Top Taliban leader, Mullah Omer and could not stop much of the
insurgency in the South of the country, as a result, NATO's member
states had to pay huge cost of a lengthy War in Afghanistan, NATO lost
their real aims in Afghanistan, its initial purpose of War in
Afghanistan was to battle Terrorism, however, the aim spread to many
other challenges, and it is now fighting for human rights, war on drug,
reconstruction and building a democratic society for Afghans, NATO
clearly lost its mandate in Afghanistan and its members had to pay
massive amount of finance to support the war at the time where their own
national economies were struggling with huge debts and deficits.
NATO
believed that the organisation will transform into a World cop, by
adopting a strategy of 'Out of Area' (Kashmeri: 1996), this dream is
diminishing at slow pace in the mountainous Afghanistan, where many of
its European members are avoiding main battle, France and Netherland has
already withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, while leaving other members
in uncertainty and disarray, on the other hand, US close ally Canada has
also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, making it more difficult for
other NATO members to achieve significant goals, the remaining members
are struggling to find resources to send a few hundred trainers to
Afghanistan.
NATO does not have much relevance in 21th
century nor it had following the Cold War and the collapsed of the
Soviet Union, it was not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance.
Mearsheimer ( 1994) stated that international institutions maintain only
'false promise' as a foundation for security. Mearsheimer's statement
demonstrates that NATO is ineffective and therefore should be disbanded,
security issues are best achieved through states, thus, security
institutions have no place in international system. If the international
community is posed with global threats, NATO would be unsuccessful, it
would be more advantageous for each region including Europe to build
their own security force rather than creating a global NATO force. It
could also be argued that security institutions are manipulated by
powers for their own national interest; hence, NATO is a great tool for
US to advance its agenda. The extension of NATO force has also
threatened development of democracy in Russia, most democratic activists
in Russia have oppose NATO enlargement, precisely, on the grounds that
it hinders the progress of democracy in Russia.
NATO is
a tool of US and the majority of Americans have different social moral
values compare to their European counterparts. Steele (2004) argued that
Americans do not share values, but institutions with Europe. This
illustrates that Europe and the US have similar institutions, like
Europe they have a separation of powers between executive and
legislature and an independent judiciary, but both Europe and the US
have different values and this distinction is crucial. It clearly shows
that they do not have common values or perceptions, and these
perceptions may include security issues, and what constitutes a threat
for the US may not constitutes a threat for the Europe. Steele (2004)
clearly distinguish these differences, in the US more people have guns
than have passports, and there is not one European nation of which is
the same as US on this. However, millions of US nationals do share
European values, but this only amounts to 48% and that the US is deeply
polarised is incorrect.
European states are officially
embedded as America's allies, and it's clear that the allies should
support America and respect their leadership, thus, this makes it hard
for European states to not follow American perceptions about security,
if they don't they will fear of being attacked as disloyal. It's very
obvious that Europeans like Americans have their own interest, sometimes
they will coincides, and these interest will also differ, but it's
normal (Steele:2004), it's clear that the US has some bilateral security
treaties with other countries. And that could be a good deal for
European states. If Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden could take
considerable risk of staying neutral during the Cold War, thus, no need
to join NATO in 21th century, in which the world is much safe than it
was in bipolar order. It's clearly true that NATO will not function with
the unanimity it demonstrated during the Cold War, however, the lesson
has been learned from Iraq War and that the organisation has become no
more than a " coalition of the reluctant"( Steele:2004), because it's
strong member such as France and Germany did not joined the Iraq War.
The
US as a leader and most powerful member of NATO, has always pushed the
European allies to spend much on their defence infrastructure, blaming
them for spending too little or spending on the wrong policies. This has
been a regular feature of NATO meetings for years. Valasek argued that
"Virtually
every piece of legislation in the U.S Congress involving NATO, such as
bills on enlargement or missile defence, pass with at least an attempt
by lawmakers to attach amendments mandating greater European
contributions (Velasak:2001,20"
Velasak statement
reveals that the Europeans are being pushed for something which they are
not interested and it's also not in their national interests to spend
much more on their defence infrastructure and pay heavily for the costs
of wars, thus, NATO has become a threat to Europe. NATO's existence
undermines Europe's own efforts to build their own regional security
institutions which will more efficiently respond to external security
threats. Some member states, particularly, the UK often looks over their
shoulders for not upsetting big brother, the US. If the UK is so much
cautious of not upsetting the US, thus, Central and East European States
are more cautious not to upset the US, because they need the US more
for their external security. On the other hand, the Common Security and
Defence policy of Europe ( CSDP) does not have much power, assets or
organisation, their first Task of deployment took place in 2003 in the
Republic of Macedonia "EUFOR Concordia"(Chivvis:2008). The organisation
seemed to be so weak that they used NATO assets, however, it was
considered to be success, but their missions are considered to be very
low profiled and small, hence, it makes it so ambiguous that they can
respond efficiently to a real global threat.
To sum up,
this essay demonstrated that NATO was founded for common defence
against the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO flourished in
some ways and its humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan and Libya provided NATO further legitimacy. Therefore,
NATO's achievements as a legitimate international security institution
cannot be underestimated; however, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed
to confront Soviet Union military power, and achieved its purpose and
outlived its usefulness, and it's time for the organisation to die a
peaceful death, it's elimination will lead the path for regional
security structure, which would efficiently deal with external security
threats, on the other hand, NATO is a tool being used by the US, as the
US is the most powerful member and assumed leader of the organisation,
therefore, this advance US agenda and sometimes the US interest coincide
with European interests, this is because most of Americans and
Europeans do not share similar values. Iraq War was a clear example of
this interest, which led NATO's main members to opt out of the War;
however, US had great interest in the War and continued without their
support.
This report was written by an anonymous writer at the UK Academic Writing Services
