The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has confounded the world’s expectations by outliving its original purpose of defending Western Europe against an invasion by the Soviet Union. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union’s empire, NATO has continued to be a relevant international organization through expansion and adaptation and has proven to be a stabilizing influence for Europe as a whole, and has served an important purpose in making multilateral action possible in situations where the United Nations has been unable or unwilling to act.
What is truly remarkable about NATO’s post Cold War transformation is how it has responded to areas outside of Europe. Jamie Shea explained that “the fact that NATO was ready to respond in Afghanistan well beyond the traditional NATO perimeter was also I think something which was overlooked at the time because it was rather revolutionary in its range” (Shea, 2004). Equally remarkable is the fact that NATO provided significant assistance to the African Union mission in Darfur, Sudan, another area outside of the original scope of the Washington Treaty that established the alliance.
In June 2005, NATO began assisting the African Union by airlifting five thousand African soldiers to Darfur, almost tripling the number of troops available to AU commanders on the ground. NATO continued to provide airlift support for the African Union until December 2007, having transported over thirty-seven thousand personnel. NATO also assisted by providing training in strategic and operational planning (NATO, 2010).
Mr. Shea pointed out that “NATO is not in Afghanistan through an act of international charity. We're there because security in that country is a key part of the campaign to defeat international terrorism” (Shea, 2004). I submit that NATO did not assist the African Union mission in Darfur as an act of international charity either, but rather, acting out of the national interests of its members.
The United Nations Security Council spelled out why Darfur threatened the interests of the powers of NATO, when it determined “that the situation in Sudan continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” because of “the dire consequences of the prolonged conflict for the civilian population in the Darfur region as well as throughout Sudan, in particular the increase in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons” (Security Council, 2005). The Security Council, and I believe NATO itself, recognized that the refugees from Darfur could destabilize the entire region and that the lack of rule of law in Darfur has made Sudan a failed state; Sudan was actually listed as the third most failed state in the entire world by the Failed States Index (Fund for Peace, 2009). Failed states can become havens to terrorist organizations as well as piracy, as we have seen in Somalia. The lack of effective governance anywhere in the world can provide dangers and risks for the rest of the world, and NATO acted in its own interest to try to help stabilize Darfur.
NATO did not intervene directly by military force for several reasons. First, it had extensive preexisting commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Second, both the African Union and Sudan itself opposed greater foreign involvement (Preble, 2006). Even after the African Union mission was rolled into the United Nations force known as UNAMID, Germany and Turkey, both NATO members, contributed both troops and police, showing their continued interest in Darfur (UNAMID, 2010).
The fact that NATO was willing to act to assist a peacekeeping mission in Africa shows the global perspective that now drives the alliance; NATO is no longer purely a defensive alliance providing for the security of Europe, but is a potent force for multilateral action anywhere in the world.
References
The Fund for Peace. (2009). Failed States Index. Retrived from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2010). Assisting the African Union in Darfur, Sudan. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49194.htm.
Preble, C. (2006). Let the African Union intervene in Darfur. CATO Institute. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6353.
Shea, J. (2004). The impact of September 11th on the Alliance. NATO Online Library. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2004/s040112a.htm.
UNAMID. (2010). UNAMID Facts and Figures. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unamid/facts.shtml.
United Nations Security Council. (2005). Resolution 1590. Retrieved from http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/284/08/PDF/N0528408.pdf?OpenElement.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
NATO's role during the Cold War
“NATO is perhaps the best known and arguably the most successful multilateral military alliance in contemporary world politics” (Pease, 2008, p. 139). NATO is not successful solely by its ability to provide conventional and nuclear deterrence, thereby providing physical security for Western Europe. NATO also united Western Europe, and in conjunction with the Marshall Plan, ensured the economic rebuilding of Europe. These efforts made the later development of the European Union possible.
According to Dr. Kelly Pease, an eminent scholar in international relations, “[NATO] was able to stabilize the European continent after centuries of violent conflict and build a lasting peace between such historical adversaries as France and Germany” (2008, p. 141). NATO provided a forum for both military and political cooperation for the states of Western Europe. While NATO was not entirely free of conflict (as the tension between Greece and Turkey clearly showed) it provided a greater degree of cooperation than had ever been seen before in Europe.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was only one part of the American strategy for the rebuilding and security of Europe. The Marshall Plan was the other. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, secretary-general of NATO, explained that “security and economics are linked. One cannot flourish without the other” (Lord Robertson, 2001). The common strategy of NATO and the Marshall Plan linked the two together so closely that President Truman said that the Marshall Plan and NATO were “two halves of the same walnut” (Lord Robertson, 2001). The Marshall Plan also promoted European unity just as NATO had done. States were only eligible for aid under the Marshall Plan if they accepted international economic cooperation as a specific condition (Pease, 2008, p. 146). President Clinton, speaking at Geneva on the fiftieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan, explained the unity that this economic program brought to Europe:
“The Marshall Plan offered a cure, not a crutch. It was never a handout; it was always a hand up. It said to Europe, if you will put your divisions behind you, if you will work together to help yourselves, then America will work with you. The British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, called the Marshall Plan ‘a lifeline to sinking men, bringing hope where there was none.’ From the Arctic Sea to the Mediterranean, European nations grabbed that lifeline, cooperating as never before on a common program of recovery. The task was not easy, but the hope they shared was more powerful than their differences” (Bill Clinton, 1997).
Jamie Shea also pointed out that the security guarantees that NATO provided allowed the European powers to focus on economic development and reconstruction without the heavy burden of high defense spending (Shea, 2003). This shows how tightly integrated the NATO and Marshall Plan strategies were.
The economic rebuilding of Europe did as much to protect the national security of the United States as the military aspect of the alliance itself, because it prevented the contagion of communist revolution from spreading further west in the chaos that followed World War II and thereby prevented the Soviet Union from finding allies in Western Europe. It helped ensure that the American blood that was spent in the liberation of Europe would not be wasted. After World War I, the American people refused to support European recovery and security by rejecting the League of Nations and overseas commitments in general. The result was another bloody war that brought carnage to an unprecedented level. NATO and the Marshall Plan ensured that this terrible mistake would not be repeated. America realized then that forcing Europe to fend for itself following World War II could result in failed states that would be vulnerable to communist influences and provide security risks for the entire world. Even today, many of the security problems around the world revolve around failed states like Somalia, especially the plague of international terrorism.
References
Clinton, W. J. (1997). The lesson of the Marshall Plan. Vital Speeches of the Day, 63, (18), 546-549. Retrieved from EBSCO index.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. (2001). Security and prosperity: Two halves of the same walnut. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010315a.htm.
Pease, K. S. (2008). International organizations: Perspectives on governance in the twenty-first century. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shea, J. (2003). How did NATO survive the Cold War? Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s031106b.htm.
According to Dr. Kelly Pease, an eminent scholar in international relations, “[NATO] was able to stabilize the European continent after centuries of violent conflict and build a lasting peace between such historical adversaries as France and Germany” (2008, p. 141). NATO provided a forum for both military and political cooperation for the states of Western Europe. While NATO was not entirely free of conflict (as the tension between Greece and Turkey clearly showed) it provided a greater degree of cooperation than had ever been seen before in Europe.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was only one part of the American strategy for the rebuilding and security of Europe. The Marshall Plan was the other. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, secretary-general of NATO, explained that “security and economics are linked. One cannot flourish without the other” (Lord Robertson, 2001). The common strategy of NATO and the Marshall Plan linked the two together so closely that President Truman said that the Marshall Plan and NATO were “two halves of the same walnut” (Lord Robertson, 2001). The Marshall Plan also promoted European unity just as NATO had done. States were only eligible for aid under the Marshall Plan if they accepted international economic cooperation as a specific condition (Pease, 2008, p. 146). President Clinton, speaking at Geneva on the fiftieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan, explained the unity that this economic program brought to Europe:
“The Marshall Plan offered a cure, not a crutch. It was never a handout; it was always a hand up. It said to Europe, if you will put your divisions behind you, if you will work together to help yourselves, then America will work with you. The British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, called the Marshall Plan ‘a lifeline to sinking men, bringing hope where there was none.’ From the Arctic Sea to the Mediterranean, European nations grabbed that lifeline, cooperating as never before on a common program of recovery. The task was not easy, but the hope they shared was more powerful than their differences” (Bill Clinton, 1997).
Jamie Shea also pointed out that the security guarantees that NATO provided allowed the European powers to focus on economic development and reconstruction without the heavy burden of high defense spending (Shea, 2003). This shows how tightly integrated the NATO and Marshall Plan strategies were.
The economic rebuilding of Europe did as much to protect the national security of the United States as the military aspect of the alliance itself, because it prevented the contagion of communist revolution from spreading further west in the chaos that followed World War II and thereby prevented the Soviet Union from finding allies in Western Europe. It helped ensure that the American blood that was spent in the liberation of Europe would not be wasted. After World War I, the American people refused to support European recovery and security by rejecting the League of Nations and overseas commitments in general. The result was another bloody war that brought carnage to an unprecedented level. NATO and the Marshall Plan ensured that this terrible mistake would not be repeated. America realized then that forcing Europe to fend for itself following World War II could result in failed states that would be vulnerable to communist influences and provide security risks for the entire world. Even today, many of the security problems around the world revolve around failed states like Somalia, especially the plague of international terrorism.
References
Clinton, W. J. (1997). The lesson of the Marshall Plan. Vital Speeches of the Day, 63, (18), 546-549. Retrieved from EBSCO index.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. (2001). Security and prosperity: Two halves of the same walnut. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010315a.htm.
Pease, K. S. (2008). International organizations: Perspectives on governance in the twenty-first century. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Shea, J. (2003). How did NATO survive the Cold War? Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s031106b.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)