Revision:Nato
From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Nato
NATO (OTAN) – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Structure
- NATO is ultimately governed by its 26 member states
- The North Atlantic Treaty and other agreements outline how decisions are to be made within NATO.
- Together the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together at least once a week and has effective political authority and powers of decision in NATO
- From time to time the Council also meets at higher levels involving Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers or Heads of Government and it is at these meetings that major decisions regarding NATO's policies are generally taken
- The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO
- When decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority
- The Military Representatives, senior officers from each country's armed forces, form the Military Committee, a body responsible for recommending to NATO's political authorities those measures considered necessary for the common defence of the NATO area
- NATO's military operations are directed by two Strategic Commanders, both senior American Officers assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their areas of command
Role
- The Military Committee’s principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the Council
- It has traditionally stated that its general aim is to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation” of its members by promoting “stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area”
- Was originally created to block Soviet expansion in Europe
How has NATO changed in the last decade or so?
- NATO began as a counter to potential Soviet aggression in Europe following the post WW2 establishment of communist regimes in central and eastern Europe. However the end of the cold war followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent demise of the Warsaw Pact left NATO with no obvious purpose
- Since then NATO ha used its defensive role to justify a more proactive approach to “out of area” activities, arguing that instability in any part of Europe would constitute a threat to NATO members.
- NATO presented a variety of new threats to validate its existence, including: international terrorism; regional ethnic conflicts; and resurgent nationalism.
- In 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to gain NATO membership. This was followed by the joining of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, republics of the USSR until its collapse in 1991, in 2004
- Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, NATO embarked on a series of steps designed to build new relationships with the former Warsaw Pact countries and particularly with Russia, which was extremely suspicious of NATO’s plans to expand eastwards
- In 1994 the Partnership for peace programme was set up which offered former Warsaw pact members limited associations, allowing them to participate in information sharing, joint exercises and peacekeeping operations
- In 1997 the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established to give Russia a consultative role in discussion of matters of mutual interest. However although Russia was thus given a voice it rarely felt that it was listened to.
- The 9/11 attacks proved to be a turning point in NATO relations with Russia, due to the supportive reaction that Russia showed.
- In 2002 the Nato-Russia Council was founded, giving Russia an equal role with NATO countries in decision making on policy to counter terrorism and other security threats.
What are the problems associated with the expansion of NATO?
- Some observers have characterised Nato’s eastward expansion as “the most dangerous strategic decision of the post-war period”
- Laying the ground for new confrontation with Russia:
- NATO members have judged that the risk of antagonising Russia is less than the risk of abandoning the established security of the Alliance.
- Much effort has been devoted to reassuring Russia, Ukraine and other ex-communist countries that NATO expansion will improve their security too by enlarging the zone of stable democracies in Europe.
- After ten years of economic and military decline, Russia’s generals have become less inclined to see NATO as a benign influence.
- If the Baltic States were to join Nato it would bring NATO to Russia’s border and cut off Kaliningrad, the Russian Federation’s valuable military enclave on the Baltic
- Russia has opposed the expansion of NATO, which it sees as provocative. Russia wants a broader framework, seeing the OSCE as the best vehicle fro developing a common security which embraces all the countries of the Euro-Atlantic area. Humiliated by NATO’s expansion plans and by its own economic and military decline, Russia could retreat into aggressive nationalism.
- Expensive:
- According to NATO’s own estimates, it will cost billions to expand NATO over the next 10 years alone. Other studies have put the cost as high as $100 billion or more, but this seems unlikely due to Eastern Europe’s economic weakness, which precludes heavy spending on new military equipment.
- Hard for new members to meet the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats. Will either weaken NATO or be a drain on other member’s resources.
- “By enlarging NATO and the EU we are enlarging the zone of security and prosperity enjoyed by only half of Europe over the past 50 years… Not to enlarge would lead to a permanent division of this continent into a prosperous, self-confident West and a stagnant, frustrated East… we either export stability or import instability”
- Expansion of NATO would dilute it. It would lead to “the overstretching of the organisation and thus the undermining of stability for the entirety of Europe” (Rob Weekes, debatabase.org)
- “Expansion is not only unnecessary but it is also likely to increase the threat of nuclear conflict in western Europe” (Rob Weekes, debatabase.org)
- Expansion will mean the accession of countries like Albania, Macedonia and Croatia – nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. What will happen if they enter into hostilities against each other again? Where will NATO’s responsibility lie?
- Gives US power over Europe:
- “The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond.”(Dr Ron Paul – member of US congress)
- “Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure” (Jonathan Steele, The Guardian) – Europe needs to separate itself from the USA
Continuing role for NATO?
- NATO was set up to protect the West from the communist nations of the USSR. It was an alliance of sovereign states bound together in common purpose – for mutual defence. NATO was a valuable organisation that helped to keep the peace during the Cold War. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and hence the disappearance of the threat, NATO’s reason to exist seemingly ceased. For all intents and purposes it achieved its stated mission. Instead of terminating NATO the heads of the member states gathered in 1999 to devise new missions for the Alliance. NATO became an organisation concerned with “economic, social and political difficulties… ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states” (Washington 1999 summit of NATO)
- Nato has flung itself into a wide range of peace-support activities including building schools in Afghanistan.
- NATO uses its long established committees on Science and the “Challenges of Modern Society” to look at environmental and social problems, such as urban regeneration
- Over 500 NATO committees meet to discuss international relations, disarmament, economics and science
- “NATO has become a large and powerful forum for international diplomacy as well as military defence” (Understanding Global Issues)
- “NATO’s unique combinations of political linkages and military capability makes it the obvious contender for peace support operations on behalf of the UN” (Understanding Global Issues)
- The extension of NATO’s responsibilities ‘out of area’ (e.g. in the former Yugoslavia) could fracture the Alliance by putting intolerable strains on its political support in member countries.
- NATO’s experience in Bosnia has provided a case study for the kind of work that NATO expects to have to carry out in the next century – half of Bosnia’s roads were rebuilt by NATO who also rebuilt over 60 bridges.
- The presumed threat of terrorism could give this institution a new life, but some think also that fighting this enemy needs a completely different political and military organisation, as well as completely different weapons systems from those on which NATO was built.
- Many also argue that NATO is in conflict with the prospects of deeper European integration in the fields of foreign policy and security within the framework of the EU institutions. Some advocates for a strong EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) would like to see NATO dismantled and create common defence and foreign policy within the existing EU institutions.
- “In Kosovo NATO’s military strength was essential in preventing a man-made humanitarian tragedy” (George Robertson)
Comments
Original content by joker13na.
|
|
