• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically analyse the role of NATO in post-Cold war Europe, with special emphasis of the significance of the two rounds of enlargement, including the similarities and differences between them.

Extracts from this document...


Critically analyse the role of NATO in post-Cold war Europe, with special emphasis of the significance of the two rounds of enlargement, including the similarities and differences between them. New World Order? New NATO? It is essential that NATO adjusted itself to new IR realm, where a tiny spark can ignite a global conflict. Therefore it is a global alliance that NATO should become to prolong its existence for next 50 years. To adjust its efficiency, it must enlarge. Four years after accepting new members - Hungary, Czech and Poland - NATO is on a crossroads. There are voices to be heard, louder and louder, that NATO is in crisis and its future seems uncertain. Contrary to what it may seem, it is not a question of internal dispute within the Alliance. During fifty years NATO's existence similar disputes happened quite often. But then, clear framework of Washington Treaty and a common (Soviet) threat were enough of a cure to heal most of them. Now its is different. It is not merely an incidental problem - it has come to question its existence, question the identity and future shape. Warsaw Pact seized to exist, Soviet Union has gone with the wind, communism is no longer a threat to Western Europe, German state is united and democratised. With NATO born in different world, is it still needed? Definitely a 'be or not to be question'... Unfortunately for political alliances, they, unlike Hamlet, can not ponder identity problems. Konrad Adenauer said in 1965 that NATO would not live forever. The end of Cold war was said to be 'the end of history'. Last fifteen years disproved that idea as being completely false. Though, it might have been a death sentence to the Alliance. Now, left on life support is waiting for 'coup de gr�ce'. But I believe NATO still has its purpose. Alliance has a lot to change in the way it functions to protect the idea standing behind its birth. ...read more.


The essence of the current enlargement debate is over qualifications, with no apparent consensus. Of an original nine candidates, two candidates, Albania and Macedonia, did not receive invitations at Prague. Each of these countries is small, with comparably small militaries potentially capable of specialised functions, such as transport or medical care, for example, but only minimally capable of building forces able to contribute to high-intensity conflict. In the view of some observers, to adhere to the letter of the military qualifications outlined in the 1999 summit communiqu�, requiring new members to contribute to missions from peacekeeping to collective defence would be tantamount to excluding their entry. Many participants in the debate favour different standards that, in their view, reflect the current political situation in Europe, where Russia is no longer a military threat but ethnic conflict, nationalism, and terrorism are a danger. In such circumstances, they contend political stability and a modernised military at least able to contribute to border defence and to peace operations are an appropriate standard. Secretary of State Powell seemed to suggest such a standard in his confirmation hearing when he stressed a need for candidates to modernise their militaries, and to strengthen their democratic structures. An opposing view is that NATO should first clearly define its mission, above all with an agreement on what types of out-of-area threats, such as terrorism, proliferation, or a disruption of the flow of oil, should be met with a possible military response. At that point, enlargement should be considered, with a determination about which prospective members might contribute to the mission. Some observers, also hesitant about enlargement, note that the United States flew over 60 percent of combat missions in the Kosovo conflict. They prefer prospective members that could relieve the U.S. burden. Yet another view is that there is no clear dichotomy between collective defence (high-intensity conflict undertaken in response, for example, to the attacks of September 11, 2001) ...read more.


It is possible that Putin now views a unified front against terrorism, in part due to Moscow's ongoing conflict in Chechnya, as more important than potential divisions with the allies over enlargement. The Duma and much of Russia's military and intelligence bureaucracy remain adamantly opposed to enlargement, which they view as a U.S.-led effort to move a military alliance closer to their territory. Officials from allied states often counter such an argument by underscoring that enlargement's purpose in large part is to ensure stability in Europe, and that the addition of new member states provides stability, and therefore security, to Russia's west. Putin may also view the entry of Estonia and Latvia into NATO (and the EU, in 2004) as a means to protect Russian minorities in those countries, given NATO and EU strictures over the treatment of ethnic minorities.6 George Bush, in his 2001 speech in Warsaw University, spelled out an expansive vision of NATO "from the Baltic to the Black Sea" and made clear that the "zero option" was not an option. His speech strongly suggested that the U.S. is thinking in broad geo-strategic terms, even if Washington has not yet formally decided on which specific candidates should be admitted. Moreover, by specifically mentioning the Baltic region and opposing "false-lines," Bush explicitly rejected the Russian thesis that there was some "red line" which NATO should not cross. This is the underlying logic of NATO's enlargement, to integrate the countries to the east of NATO, former members of the Soviet Union, into the community of shared Western values, and into the Western institutions - of which NATO is the most important - that define and defend those values. As the President Bush observed in Warsaw, "Yalta did not ratify a natural divide, it divided a living civilisation." He made it clear that his goal is to erase the false lines that have divided Europe and to "welcome into Europe's home" every European nation that struggles toward democracy, free markets, and a strong civic culture. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level European Union section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level European Union essays

  1. C1 Analyse the factor, which contribute towards an effective team.

    The advantages of responsibilities are that if members are given more responsibility they feel they are more involved in the business. The manager might not give more work to do. The disadvantages of responsibilities are that if they don't do their work they may let their business down.

  2. This report encompasses six aspects of organizational behavior, that is team building, communication, culture, ...

    Empowered communicators learn to receive signals so they can be proactive rather than reactive to what they send. When communicating, step into the shoes of the other person. Read body language, tone of voice, statements, and silences. Investigate the employee's motivation and fear.

  1. Is it possible and desirable to think of migration as a security issue in ...

    Secondly, by making it a 'state's secret', moving it from public discourse to arena of state security (clandestine issues). The best illustration of the latter is the situation in contemporary Russia. Official discourse concerning migration in Russia is highly securitisied.

  2. George Washington: America's Greatest Leader

    Washington, however, knew that his young nation was in no condition enter another war. He simply declared neutrality by saying that he believed "that France had actually started the war." 3 Following Washington's decision to avoid France's war, Washington found himself in a situation with the French minister to the United States, Edmond Charles Genet.

  1. Why did many British colonies demand independence from Britain in the years immediately after ...

    President De Gaulle was mainly refusing Britain to join the EEC. Eventually president De Gaulle lost power and then when Britain applied for the third time they were accepted. Question 3 In this question I intent to write about the impact that the EEC had on Britain in the years

  2. Transformation of the U.S. Hegemony in Europe through NATO after the Cold War

    "Did U.S. manage to secure a permanent place for the new security arrangements of Europe?" My theoretical stand will utilize the political and military relationship among the nations, particularly U.S. and European countries including non-EU NATO members. I will not deeply analyze the social and economic dynamics behind the motives of the states.

  1. Is it possible to talk of civil society beyond the nation-state? Although a clich, ...

    "The nation-state implies the parallel occurrence of a state and a nation. In the ideal nation-state, the population consists of the nation and only of the nation: the state not only houses it, but protects it and its national identity (i.e., they coincide exactly): every member of the nation is

  2. What was the original purpose of NATO?

    It was envisioned as a US commitment to help defend Western Europe against the USSR but instead was invoked for the first time when Europe came to the defense of the USA after the 9/11. The first actual of force by NATO was in Bosnia in 1994, in support of the UN mission there.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work