NATO And Cold War
The latter half of the twentieth century has been dominated by the Cold
War and
the actions and events surrounding it. During this period different
alliances
and treaties were formed and many of these were institutionalized.
One such
alliance was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This
organization
was set up by the Northern Atlantic Western Powers to combat the
Eastern Soviet
threat. Today however NATO still exists and plays an active
role in
international relations. The question asked then is why after the
Soviet Threat
has dispersed an organization that was set up with the sole
purpose of defeating
the Soviets, is still persisting. NATO was formed on the
4th of April 1949 with
an alliance of twelve independent nations committed to
defence and security.
Between 1952 and 1982 four more nations joined and
three more in March 1999. The
original alliance was formed with the purpose
of stopping Soviet expansion in
Europe, with the United States as the
main driving force. With the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the
consequential end of the Cold War it may be asked why
has NATO survived and
still plays an active and influential role in European
interstate politics.
NATO has a definite reason for still continuing on in
Europe. According
to Michael Ruhle (Senior Planning Officer, Policy Planning
and
Speechwriting Section of NATO's Political Affairs Division) NATO has
changed
from a singular-purpose organization to a multi-purpose
institution,
"working together to create a more benign strategic
environment." Mr.
Ruhle argues that NATO is contributing to the "emerging
Euro-Atlantic
security architecture." It is not really an institution but an
architect.
The architecture being a "series of key political processes
that shape the
strategic environment, the European integration process, the
evolution of
Russia, the development of transatlantic relations, and the
evolution of crisis
management in the Euro-Atlantic area." NATO can be seen
to be an
institution aiming at peace and security within Europe. There are
other
alliances than NATO that have become or are multi-purpose institutions.
This can
be seen through the EU, with its enlargement operation and its
designs for
Russia. Also the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) in
defusing minority obstacles in Europe, overseeing elections
in Bosnia and
working with an agreement in Kosovo. NATO, according to Mr.
Ruhle is however,
unique as only it can offer coherency in bringing about
these processes. The
NATO website offers an interesting perspective on
the reasons for NATO's
existence. "Today following the end of the Cold War
and of the division of
Europe, the Alliance has been restructured to
enable it to participate in the
development of cooperative security
structures for the whole of Europe. It has
also transformed its political and
military structures in order to adapt them to
peacekeeping and crisis
management tasks undertaken in cooperation with
countries which are not
members of the Alliance and with other international
organizations." Its
peace plans and structures includes the North Atlantic
Cooperation
Council (NACC), replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC)
and
the Partnership for Peace (PfP). However there is a different way of
looking
at the persistence of on organization such as NATO in contemporary
international
relations. Stephen Walt argues that alliances that persist are
a result of
hegemonic leadership, preserving credibility, domestic politics
and elite
manipulation, the impact of institutionalization and ideological
solidarity,
shared identities and security communities. A strong driving
force behind an
alliance will sustain it even after the immediate threat has
gone, especially if
that force is willing to bear the costs of the alliance
and its purposes. The
hegemonic power within the alliance must be strongly
committed to preserving and
even expanding the relationship. They must also
be stronger than any in the
alliance that may no longer wish to participate
or contribute. To survive the
alliance must be a symbol of credibility and
resolve. Nations may be unwilling
to pull out of an alliance in case an
opponent or another ally may see this move
as a lack of resolve. Walt argues
that US involvement in Bosnia was a result of
the fear that no response would
create further suspicion on NATO's role and
future, rather than a genuine
care for the Bosnian people. Alliances have also
been known to survive
because of groups within a state are interested in the
continuation of a
particular alliance. In the case of NATO, there has been
active support for
NATO enlargement by Polish-Americans. Walt argues that the
higher the level
of institutionalization there is the harder it becomes to break
up an
alliance. Mr. Ruhle calls this bureaucratic inertia. In a highly
bureaucratic
alliance there is a group of people who obviously don't want the
alliance to
break up. NATO is a good example of this as support stems from
former NATO
officials, defence intellectuals, military officers, journalists and
policy
analysts. All who have addressed the issues facing Euro-Atlantic
cooperation
and conflict. Coupled with this is that a highly
institutionalized
organization may indeed provide the necessary capabilities,
that would be useful
in the future. Especially in the area of cost. NATO can
build on its foundations
of cooperation began in the cold war and encourage
continued relationships in
the Contemporary International System. When two
nations share common political
and social values and objectives, an alliance
may be easier to persist, even
after the original rationale is gone. Karl
Deutsch "argued that forming a
security community rested on compatible
values, expectations of economic gain, a
wide range of mutual transactions,
broad elite networks and high levels of
social communication." As a summary,
the reasons NATO still exists differ
according to perceptions. According to
NATO, it is continued because of its
ability to contribute to the emerging
Euro-Atlantic security architecture.
However, it can be argued that NATO
persists because of its nature as an
organization. Organizations are not easy
to break up especially one as large and
influential as NATO, plus it does
provide a system of communication that can
encourage further cooperation and
peace within Europe.