Scribblings on NATO

[Sonic Glitch]

This is an end-of-the-year paper I wrote on the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era. Questions? Comments? Critiques? Suggestions? Let me know if you want me to include the source list. The internal documentation is still in it, but i didn't copy and paste the works cited.

The Changing Threat in Europe
Has NATO Outlived Its Usefulness?
"NATO is a subject that drives the dagger of boredom deep, deep into a heart." That phrase was written by Jack Beatty in a 1989 edition of "The Atlantic" entitled "The Exorbitant Anachronism." The article, written during the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Communist threat in Eastern Europe questioned the justification of continued massive expenditures on the alliance in the face of a waning threat. I ask a similar question: In the face of the challenges of modern combat, does the NATO Alliance still serve a legitimate purpose?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization came out of a European defensive alliance consisting of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. The Brussels Treaty was a military alliance created to provide mutual defense in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Within a month the parties of the Brussels treaty began negotiating with the United States and Canada in an effort to give the alliance some legitimate military teeth. In 1949 the Brussels Treaty became the North Atlantic Treaty (or Washington Treaty) including the United States and Canada (Campbell). The most important clause of that treaty is Article 5 "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force " (Organization).
NATO primarily served as a deterrent force throughout the Cold War. Article 5 was never implemented because the Soviets never attempted to attack outside of their own territory. The only external aggressive actions taken by the Soviet Union were the blockading of West Berlin in 1948 (Britannica), the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 (Simkin), and the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 (Guide to Russia). NATO was not formed until after the Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Airlift was primarily a U.S. run operation. NATO's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis was to increase its global alert level; the Missile Crisis is one of the few times the global alert level went to DefCon 3, a status indicating a heightened readiness. Essentially, DefCon 3 means "Attention, military action is imminent. We are attempting to avoid it but be prepared." In the United States, Strategic Bomber Command went to Defcon 2 (be prepared to take-off) but was the only military organization to do so (unknown). It was NATO's heightened readiness and military preparation that avoided war in Europe in the Cold War.
NATO presented a unified front to Soviet Aggression. During the various crisis of the Cold War, none of them included expansion into Western Europe. NATO was founded primarily as a deterrent and succeeded admirably in that field. The end of the Cold War during the 1989-1991 period brought new questions about the future of NATO. NATO was set up as a defense organization in case of Soviet aggression; the grand irony is that the organization was never called on during the Cold War as a result of Soviet actions. Did NATO still have a place in a world with only one superpower (Campbell)? Was the continued massive expenditure justified (Beatty)? What, exactly, is NATO going to do with itself now that the "Evil Empire" has been defeated?
The Post-Cold War rise of the European Union gave rise to more questions. Was NATO necessary in the face of Europe more organized along economic and political lines? The European Union came out of the impact of World War II. With the end of the war, many Europeans are determined to not allow such death and destruction to happen again. After the division of Europe, the Western nations form the Council of Europe, a basis for increased co-operation between the states. The original plan was initially for an economically unified Europe, with the intention that if all the major industries were organized under one central authority, no one nation would be able to secretly manufacture the war goods necessary to wage war on the World War II scale (i.e., a country such as Germany would not be able to produce tanks under the moniker "agricultural tractors"). The plan was presented by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. Six countries initially sign the agreement, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg; four of the six nations were members of the NATO military alliance.
With the formation of the Council of Europe and Schulman Plan, came a 1951 proposal for the creation of the "European Community of Defense," a response to the remilitarization of Germany. The plan was tabled when it failed to achieve ratification in the French National Assembly (Wikipedia) (European). The plan was rejected partially due to Gaullist fears that the plan threatened French national sovereignty, a fear that eventually led President De Gaulle to remove the French Military from the NATO chain of command in 1966 (Elbaz). In 2009, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the return of France to NATO's military chain of command.
This move by France represents an important solidarity in Europe for the 21st Century. With the fall and break-up of the Soviet Union, NATO and Western Europe no longer faced a unified threat. NATO was set up to fight a conventional battle, infantry, tanks and planes meeting on a battlefield. Ironically enough, the world is now more dangerous with the fall of the Soviet Union. Whereas the threat, both conventional and nuclear, to the Western World was once controlled by the long-range strategic planning of Moscow, the disintegration of that tight central control has led to smaller regional conflicts along ethnic and religious lines (Barna). Also, in the immediate post-Cold War period, the Russian Military was in a decrepit state, it is unknown how many (if any) nuclear or chemical or biological warheads are misplaced, but the possibility must be considered. These warheads could possibly make their way into the hands of various terrorist groups. The dissolution of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe re-opened old wounds between various ethnic groups. The very first time NATO showed its military strength was in the Bosnian crisis in 1995, where the "Implementation Force" helped enforce the terms of the Dayton Treaty, and the "Stabilization Force" helps maintain security during reconstruction (Barna) (Center for Balkan Development).
The Balkan Conflict demonstrates the new type of 21st Century threat NATO faces. No longer is the enemy marching under one flag or in one uniform, or even from one territory. The conflict pitted Serbs from Serbian and Bosnian Serbs versus native Bosnians and Muslims (Barna). The threat of a standing army has been replaced by the threat of the "extra national forces," forces with no geographic or national unity, forces which are only unified by ideology.
Many such groups focus on going after loan nations, creating instability in areas where they know they will not face an overwhelming multinational reaction (i.e., The Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Southeastern Europe). These tactics make NATOs deterrent role perhaps more important than it was in the cold war. NATO showed its renewed solidarity when it invoked Article 5 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. The decision to invoke Article 5 showed that NATO had adjusted itself to the times and that with the primary threat, terrorism, an attack on one constituted an attack on all. Twenty years after the initial Soviet Invasion, NATO forces found themselves fighting in Afghanistan. NATO acknowledges that the nature of the world has changed since the Cold War, and NATO continues to evolve to meet that change (Roberston). NATO expanded after the Cold War to include the former Soviet Republics. The organization now includes nations such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, as well as Albania and Croatia (Campbell) (Radic).
NATO restructured itself as a primarily political alliance in Europe, not superseding the European Union but working with it to help recovering Eastern Bloc nations. NATO created the Partnership for Peace initiative to "working to expand and intensify political and military cooperation throughout Europe, increase stability, diminish threats to peace, and build strengthened relationships by promoting the spirit of practical cooperation and commitment to democratic principles that underpin the Alliance." (Campbell). NATO has reinvented itself as a political and military tool for continued stabilization in the 21st Century.
I started this essay assuming the answer to the question "Has NATO outlived its usefulness." would be "Yes." I assumed that with the end of the Cold War when NATO lost the reason for its existence, it was merely hanging on as the last gasp of the US trying to maintain power in the world. However, I discovered that as the nature of the threat changed, NATO changed to meet it. NATO was a deterrent military force and evolved into a deterrent military and world-changing political force. The solidarity that served the member nations so well during the Cold War continues to be important in the post-Cold War world. NATO now serves as a unifying factor in Europe, and an ally in the effort to wipe out terroristic extra-national groups. It is possible that one day, as the European Union grows in power NATO will no longer be needed, but as long as NATO continues to grow and adapt to the changes in the world, it will remain a relevant, policy making force.