Today, the essential purpose of NATO is to ensure the freedom and security of its members by both political and military means. “It is dedicated to protecting democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The best means of safeguarding these shared values is to bring about a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe as a whole.”
In recent years, the expansion of NATO has been an important issue. As well as admitting new full members into the organization, NATO has reached out to 26 non-member countries to take part in its Partnership for Peace program. This program was started in 1994 and aims at consolidating international relations between all the countries involved, and specifically to improve the functioning of the original existing Allies and new partner countries to work together in joint operations. The program helps to build a stable relationship among the nations involved in the interest of maintaining collective security. The countries participating are Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The partnership program also aims at giving countries that were once communist, a trial period in which they can prove themselves capable of complying and joining too. If they were successful at meeting requirements during this trial period then they would be admitted as partial members into NATO. This eased Russian fear since they realized that NATO would only keep expanding, so this way, countries are given an opportunity to change. The new partnership is not only practical for NATO and the countries involved but it also helps build a certain degree of trust that in today’s world is imperative to maintaining international peace and avoiding potential conflict between nations. The Partnership for Peace Program only further enhances the importance of collective security.
NATO has specific guidelines when it comes to admitting new members and making important decisions. All decisions in NATO are made by consensus; this means that every decision has to be agreed upon mutually among all of its members. Members consult regularly in order to reach consensus on matters at hand. Since every member of NATO still preserves its full independence and sovereignty, no decision may be made by NATO that goes against the individual will of one of its members. However, despite the fact that all members are allied, NATO does not step in the way of any of its members from taking individual action in a situation when they see fit. Aside from the prominent Article 5 of the NATO charter, Article 4 also outlines clearly when the decision to take action should be made. This article states that if in the opinion of any of the members, they feel that their territorial integrity, political independence, or their security as a whole is threatened, and then a NATO response should be invoked.
NATO has gone through processes of expansion over the years, admitting new countries to join. In order for a new member to join they must fulfill certain criteria. NATO is the strongest security alliance in history, so in order to confront and eliminate such present global threats as terrorism and the creation and use of weapons of mass destruction it is more effective for them to become allies with other countries who share their values, ethics, and goals. The enlargement of NATO is intended to benefit all the allies who join, thus ultimately making NATO as a whole much stronger and more effective than if each member were to stand for itself individually. NATO enlargement, although considered controversial by some, is aimed at enhancing the political and economical stability of all its members and enforces the importance of proper governance, rule of law, and significantly human rights.
NATO held its last summit in Prague in November 2002 which was then followed by its second round of discussions from December 2002 until March 2003 between NATO and the individual countries who have recently been invited to join. On 26 March 2003, NATO Ambassadors signed accession protocols, which once it has been ratified by all 19 existing members of NATO, will permit Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to become and members of NATO. By May 2004, the whole process of induction is expected to be finished. In order for a country to join NATO they must not only express an interest in joining but also show willingness and ability to meet the political, legal and military obligations and commitments that are required in order to join NATO.
Before a country can join NATO they must first receive an invitation from the current members to start membership negotiations. The actual induction of a new member into NATO requires ratification by the parliaments of each existing NATO member. In the case of the United States, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote yes to admit a new member. Aside from the brief criteria previously mentioned, the generally stated conditions for NATO membership include the presence of a well functioning democratic system, a free-market economy, the absence of conflict among civilians, respecting and obeying internationally recognized human rights, and having civilian control of the military. The country must display a readiness to defend and spend a certain portion of its budget on its defense. All of these factors are essential in terms of being admitted to NATO. The country has to display that it is ready and able to participate actively and effectively. A failure to do so means the country would not be of any significant use to NATO and their system of collective defense. If it is to their benefit to become a member of NATO, then it is in their best interest to fulfill all of the required criteria.
NATO itself is composed of various organs, each of which plays their own important role within its structure as a whole. NATO is divided up into different sectors that deal with different areas and issues. These main organs of the Civil and Military Structure are: The North Atlantic Council, the Defense Planning Committee, the Nuclear Planning Group, Committees Subordinated to these groups, the Military Committee, Allied Command Europe, Allied Command Atlantic, Canada-US Regional Planning Group, and importantly, at the head of it all, the Secretary General.
The North Atlantic Council is the principal means used for consultation between all members of NATO and their governments on all issues affecting their common collective security. As previously mentioned, its decisions are based on consensus, although each member has an equal right to express their own views. The Northern Atlantic Council meets as a whole at least twice a year although its representatives also meet for discussions on a weekly basis.
The Defense Planning Committee is designed to deal with all issues in relation to defense and is composed of representatives from all the Allied countries. Just like the Northern Atlantic Committee, it also meets regularly on a smaller scale, and meets twice a year when member countries get to be represented by their own defense ministers. Another important component is the Nuclear Planning Group which has authority for all nuclear matters.
The Military Committee is the highest military authority in the NATO alliance. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of each country in NATO except for France, who is represented only by a military mission since they withdrew from the Military Committee in 1966 while still remaining a member of the council. Iceland, which doesn’t have military forces, is represented instead by a civilian member. The role of the Military Committee is to advise the Northern Atlantic Committee and the Defense Planning Committee on all military actions and procedures that are necessary for their common collective defense and helps provide guidance to all the NATO commanders in their operations and proceedings.
Lastly, a very important and highly significant part of the NATO structure is the Secretary General. The Secretary General is nominated into his position by the member governments and then plays the role of Chairman of all the other components including the North Atlantic Council, the Defense Planning Committee, and the Nuclear Planning Group, and is the Secretary General and chief executive of NATO as a whole. The current Secretary General of NATO is Lord Robertson who was voted into his position in 1999.
When it comes to the decision-making process within NATO, it is the Secretary General who is responsible for directing the whole procedure of discussion and consultation among members. The role of the Secretary General includes proposing items to be discussed at NATO discussions. He also stands as the key authority when dealing with disputes or disagreements between member countries. In addition to this he is also in charge of directing NATO’s International Staff and is the principal spokesman for the whole Alliance, when dealing both with its external relations and also in communications with and among all the member governments. It is also the duty of the Secretary General to appear as a spokesperson to the media. If for some reason the Secretary General is unable to fulfill any of his duties or responsibilities, the Deputy Secretary General acts as a stand in, he acts as a substitute when needed. However, this position is not always needed, the role of the Deputy is also to assist the Secretary General and work alongside him somewhat like a right hand man. As the Secretary General, Lord Robertson must fulfill his role as the head or Chairman of every group, council and committee related to NATO. The Secretary General and his Deputy are also assisted by a legal Adviser.
Although NATO has managed to successfully complete many of its missions and operations, it has also gone through considerable criticism in many forms, and from various angles including decisions made, actions taken, ethics used, or just overall as a whole. One of the main criticisms made about NATO is that since completing its original mission of preventing the expansion of Communism out of the Soviet Unions, they are no longer needed as their purpose has been served.
One such analysis suggests that since the Cold War has ended, the role for NATO has perhaps ended also. Yet is seems like the major powers involved are eager to actually expand NATO even more, which could perhaps detrimentally result in more countries arming themselves with deadly weapons including weapons of mass destruction, on the grounds of their security being threatened considering the opposition they face by being so outnumbered of overpowered by the Alliance. Analysts say this is greatly to do with the fact that this expansion would satisfy the interests of the United States. The United States has always taken a bigger voice when in a position of power or authority. They have often received criticism for their perceptible motives to satisfy their own desires and further their own gains. As NATO continues to evolve, it is mainly the United States who is advocating new missions and taking a more assertive approach to military operations. The United States made proposals during NATO discussions held in 1999 suggesting that NATO should no longer be obligated to secure a United Nations Security Council approval in order to undergo its military operations. , the United States does thus far maintain that NATO will continue to act in accordance to the principles outlines in the UN Charter. However, U.S. officials do argue that the alliance should be allowed to operate in situations even when the formal authorization from the UN Security Council cannot be obtained. NATO continues to plan to carry out collective security duties including peacekeeping operations that take place outside of its members' territory. (Foreign Policy in Focus) Similarly, another issue related to United States involvement in NATO is that NATO enlargement and the proposals for the alliance's new missions can be presupposed as the strengthening of U.S. leadership role in Europe.
In recent events there was controversy with NATO possibly acting without United Nations Security Council authorization and calling itself a peace-keeping force. While the United Nations itself is not perfect either, it does in fact have more experience in peace-keeping activities but has constantly been undermined and even sometimes used by the more powerful nations when it suits them. Some say that NATO is actually now trying to compete with the United Nations and minimize their standing or role on the global front.
Other criticisms of NATO are that while undertaking military missions, they may have sometimes acted in way that could be considered non-humanitarian, or that they killed an unnecessary number of civilians while undergoing operations. On the other hand, NATO has achieved many goals that they have set out to compete. In 1995, the two opposing sides involved in the civil war in Bosnia signed the Dayton Agreement which implemented a new peace settlement. NATO, with the assistance of non-NATO countries immediately sent out 60,000 troops to Bosnia in order to ensure that both sides were complying with the Agreement and, if need be, to enforce the military aspects of it. This involvement of NATO prevented a reoccurrence of conflict and helped to ensure and provide a secure environment which would ultimately create a solid basis for the maintenance of peace in the area. Over the course of a year they successfully carried this out and helped to reintroduce and maintain this agreement to peace. Long-term stability has been and still is a main objective of NATO.
Today, NATO is pioneering to continue expanding, enlarging, and increasing its scope of activities. Ever since the end of the Cold War NATO has been spreading its wings even further and has become involved in a whole range of missions in relation not only to defense but also greatly to peacekeeping. After the attacks of September 11th the focus of NATO shifted mostly to counteracting terrorism. The decision to do so was unanimous as it was an issue that all parties felt worthy of retaliating to. There was no discrepancy in the decision. However, such consistency was not displayed when the decision was being made about sending NATO troops to engage in activities in Iraq. Consensus was not reached with either NATO or the United Nations. Despite criticisms of its necessity in today’s world, historically NATO played a very significant role in the development of trusting relationships between nations, collective security, and maintaining peace, and continues to be influential in today’s global politics.
Bibliography
(1) Official NATO Website - http://www.nato.int
(2) http://www.expandnato.org
(3) Speech given by Lord Robertson June 20th, 2002 (online at International Information Program: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02062017.htm)
(4) Foreign Policy in Focus: The Progressive Response – Vol. 3, Number 8, March 1999
(5) Lawrence Ziring, Robert Riggs, Jack Plano - The United Nations: International Organization and World Peace
(6) The Need for NATO - http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Nato.asp
Table of Contents:
1-2 - Introduction
2-3 - Brief explanation and history of NATO
3 - Raison d’être of NATO
3-4 - NATO expansion and Partnership for Peace
4-6 - Admissions Policies of NATO
6-9 - Internal management, structure, and organs of NATO
9-11 - Successes and criticisms of NATO
11 - Conclusion and future of NATO
http://www.expandnato.org
http://www.nato.int (“About NATO”)
http://www.expandnato.org
International Information Program: Speech given by Lord Robertson June 20th, 2002 (online at: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02062017.htm)
Foreign Policy in Focus: The Progressive Response – Vol. 3, Number 8, March 1999
http://www.expandnato.org
Lawrence Ziring, Robert Riggs, Jack Plano - The United Nations: International Organization and World Peace
http://www.expandnato.org
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Nato.asp
International Information Program: Speech given by Lord Robertson June 20th, 2002 (online at: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02062017.htm)
