The military operations of Russia in Ukraine has attracted divided opinions from different journalists around the world. According to Wark (2022), Ukraine future is already at stake despite having expressed its lack of interest in joining NATO. President Zelensky informed the international community that his country was no longer keen on joining this military alliance. However, that did not stop President Putin from declaring a special military action against the country. It is almost one year since Ukraine came under attack. Some of its territories are already controlled by the Russian military. Thousands of Ukrainians have lost their lives and properties worth billions of dollars have been destroyed.
The point of view of this senior editor is that the future of Ukraine is at stake, and the only refuge would be to join NATO. President Putin is interested in annexing the entire country or at least most of its territories, having succeeded in annexing Crimea in 2014. The editor feels that the only deterrent would be for Ukraine to join NATO. This military alliance offer this country the military assistance that it needs to be free from any future attacks from Russia. This is a liberal perspective that this auditor has taken because it requires the Ukrainian government to take a bold step and defy Russia. Instead of playing safe and following the dictates of President Putin, the leadership of Ukraine will be taking a stance that it will not tolerate bullying. I support this argument of Ukraine fully joining NATO as the only way of protecting its sovereignty and territory. Russian government has demonstrated that it will use its military might to expand its territory, and the only way of stopping it is the presence of a stronger power in the region.
A section of the global society believe that Ukraine will be safer if it completely abandons its quest of joining NATO. Crook (2022), a senior editor at Bloomberg, argues that the only way of allaying fears of Russia is for this country to commit to be outside the EU and NATO. The main concern of President Putin and his regime is that Ukraine is becoming an ally of the west, which poses a serious military threat to the nation. Russia believes that the only way of neutralizing the threat of having NATO within its borders is to annex the entire Ukraine or most of its eastern territories. President Putin and his regime will only feel safe if its neighbor abandons the desire of joining unfriendly military alliances.
The conservative point of view taken in this editorial is meant to appease President Putin. The perspective taken in this editorial is conservative as it seeks to maintain status quo in Eastern Europe. My personal view is that military operations in Ukraine is a barbaric attack on a sovereign nation and it has little to do with Ukraine joining NATO. Russia had already annexed Crimea, and its intention is clear, which is to take control of the entire Ukraine. As soon as Putin started its special military operations, President Zelensky made a commitment that his country was no longer interested in joining NATO. However, that did not stop the attack. It means that joining NATO may be the only solution for this nation.
Understanding human society requires critical analysis of cognitive values attached to practices, beliefs, and social dynamics which control and align a society towards astute of simultaneously interacting functions at macro and micro levels. State of anarchy might bring threat to this peaceful coexistence as a result of interference from an external force.
Thus, the key conceptual idea of this reflective treatise is an in-depth and explicit review of the article “Koran Burning in NATO Error Incites Afghans” which was published in the New York Times on 21st February, 2012 by Sangar Rahimi and Alissa Rubin.
Besides, the treatise resonates on sociological imagination in order to understand relationship between behavior and society. In addition, the paper identifies the sociological perspectives of conflict theory, Functionalism, and Interactionism.
The article “Koran Burning in NATO Error Incites Afghans”, discusses the escalating tension in Afghanistan. This is due to accusation circulating in the corners and homes of Afghan Muslims that some American soldiers in the NATO base are burning the holy Koran in what they perceive as malice and religious antagonism.
Despite spirited initiations to restore order, General Allen and other NATO officials’ apology are rejected and tension is escalating characterized by verbal onslaught and bitter utterances. This article appears on page 9 of the news paper.
Sociological Imagination is the intrinsic ability to surpass common view and analyze situation as they occur in the background of informed theoretical conceptualization. This concept views the society as a platform where conflicting and friendly occurrences interact to influence behavioral inclination, norm organization, and conflicts as a result of cut link between order and anarchy.
As a matter of fact, this concept liberates an individual to draw an informed understanding of the past through reflection of current events. Through sociological imagination, it is easy to understand behavior change and identify forces: positive or negative, that facilitate the angle of inclination towards the preset norm and values at individual and societal magnitude.
As a matter of fact, understanding sociological imagination calls for knowledge of present and past events such as war, disaster, social injustices, and religious inclinations that help to change history of a society. In the process, at micro level, perception of an individual is likely to adopt a reactive response exhibited in line of behavior.
In the article, religion and sense of pride towards an affiliation is a serious issue at stake in the views of the Muslims in Afghanistan. Muslims view the attempt to burn Koran books as mastermind move created to undermine the norms and principles holding their society together from western decay. In every society of the world, religion or belief in existence of a super natural power unites followers in common belief.
In particular, the Koran is a strong ideological tool viewed by Muslims as perfect and represents the desires of God in their lives. Interference with the Koran could mean breaking down bonds and affiliations uniting the institution of marriage, family, class, social inclination, and religion at micro and macro level.
In response to a threat on beliefs, they come out in numbers to express dissatisfaction and restore order through protests. Since the issue at hand is sensitive, they are ready to adopt every means possible to assert a shared stand. The article discussed religious intolerance and forces interacting to undermine beliefs between warring societies.
Basically, the concept of functionalism resonates on the facet of describing components of a society as functioning in a nuclear unit called organic analogy. These parts are related to each other as independent but existing in a single unit.
At macro level, these organs include the family unit, religion, economy, and kinship organized as institutions that run on norms and agglutination of principles on the circumference of common belief. On the other hand, conflict theory resonates on the periphery of viewing civilization as contributed by the struggle for authority within groups interacting in the society for scarce opportunities and resources.
Under this school of thought, class relationship plays critical role in the outcome of the struggle. Often, it is the ruling class that carries the day as they form a narrow edge in the hierarchy of needs triangle. Factually, the ruling class are elites who are more influential that the mass and run key aspects of societal institutions from religion, family, and economy.
The main cause of conflict is the need for dominance over an ideology, religious inclination, or behavior. On the other hand, interactionism dwells on interactive issues at individual level or micro level. This concept studies behavior of an individual existing in a larger society and response the individual exhibit towards norms and institutions that monitor order.
Reflectively, this school of thought study detailed individual interaction to one another and level of response to each stimuli. For instance, how would an individual behave when faced with a situation of high magnitude that affects daily life?
In line with the beliefs in functionalism, religion has pivotal influence on the way of life in the Muslim society. As a matter fact, marriage, family, economy, and kinship are controlled by norms and principles entrenched in the Koran.
Therefore, burning the Koran would seriously jeopardize these units and disintegrate them into pieces hanging loosely. Since religion is a unit among other, interference with the same is likely to destabilize the organic analogy.
As an aspect of conflict theory, the need for dominance and control has necessitated the form of response adopted by Muslims. Conflict theory dictates dominance and intrinsic value creation within set guidelines. Therefore, competition for religious dominance and influence over an ideology is the key issue that triggered the violent response in order to restore dominance.
Interactionism determines the form of response an individual may exhibit in an event. In this circumstance, the article identifies the event as religious intolerance fabricated via burning of what an individual perceives at the foundation and principle controlling his behavior and belief.
In an interactive response, at micro level, a Muslim views this onslaught as a move aimed at undermining his survival and comfort. Therefore, the individual unite with others who share same ideology to participate in violent protests aimed at restoring peace and tranquility. As described in the article, the response in characterized by pelting of stones and burning American flag to show dissatisfaction.
Conclusively, functionalism may offer the most convincing reason for response to burning of the holy Koran. In the Islamic society, religion is the foundation to family, kinship, economic, and social units existing within a single unit called the community. Generally, functionalism determines the organization strength of a society and dictates level of response to threat on the same.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when signing the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 declared that the organization would diligently work towards the unification of their combined defense in the preservation of peace and security.1
The utmost danger to these goals was an armed attack by an unfriendly power. The insight resulted in the treaty’s most renowned provision as entrenched in Article V. It states that the parties to the treaty had concurred that a military attack against any of the members in Europe or North America would be regarded as an invasion against them all.
However, the purpose for creating NATO has been objectively investigated by several interested parties of researchers and academicians including Lord Ismay to examine if NATO has a future given the contemporary security environment.
In fact, Ismay formulated that the main objective of founding the alliance in 1949 was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.2 Six decades later, the mission has been achieved. However, the modern democratic Germany does not present any security threat.
The effective collapse of the Soviet Union has resulted in a Russia that is incapable of presenting substantial military or conceptual threat to Europe effectively making NATO unnecessary from this perspective.
The United States has played a vital role in ensuring that its national interests are permanently protected. Some quarters have suggested that the US has played its part in the alliance and should now leave. At the same time, NATO has achieved its mission in accordance with the treaty that created it.
The accomplishment of these important missions somehow leaves NATO close to obsolete. NATO consequently requires restructuring and revamping to reflect on the realities of the 21st century.
Evidently, the role of NATO remains important in view of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and increasing terrorism activities that threaten its members and non-members in equal measures. The security concerns of the 21st century and interconnected aspects offer NATO a new lease of life and a future.
Main Body
Initial paradox
During the final decades of the 20th century, NATO was faced with a paradox. “The battle that the alliance had created to confront and conquer known as the conformist conflict in Europe terminated without bloodshed”.3 This almost made NATO irrelevant.
Strangely, when the alliance relaxed, armed chaos exploded in the Balkans. As a result, Europe was caught in the violence. NATO’s response appeared to be sluggish given that the enormous task of merging the expanse increased with the flop of Yugoslavia.
In a timely manner, the alliance made the right resolution by intervening to terminate a violent war and remaining to maintain peace. The alliance assumed the responsibility of reconciling the former rivals into the transatlantic fold.
This was a feat and the realization of one of the objectives of the European unity as stipulated in the Treaty. Reaching an agreement on both counts was taxing. However, the leaders of the alliance fixed the course of European history in a style that would offer enhanced safety, refuge and opportunity for all.4
Modern paradox
The alliance is inherently faced by another paradox in its operation. The key member of the alliance in terms of finance and military capability enabled the United States to accomplish its mission as envisaged in the formation of the alliance. It has secured its interests globally by using the provisions of the treaty.
Besides, it has managed to neutralize major threats to its national and regional security through ISAF and direct military actions. The paradox that faces the alliance emerges from these facts and demands gallant and extensive resolutions.
The transatlantic region is less susceptible to conformist conflict now and in the foreseeable future. Since the alliance was designed to protect the community and the region from threat, it is still busy pursuing this mission despite lack of any potential threat.
However, renewed threats to the region took a twist though not directly after the 9/11 attack on the American landmarks. Citizens of ninety countries died during the attacks on the Pentagon and New York. The consequences were economically felt globally.
Through ISAF, NATO’s responsibility expanded to the global arena through the deployment of troops to Afghanistan to combat terrorists responsible for the attacks.
For a number of countries, the shift to democracy has progressed in fits and starts. These include NATO’s neighbors. Economically weaker states face the hitches of controlling their areas and affording urgent needs for their populations.
Under the umbrella of ISAF, NATO has a future as its assistance is required in these countries and regions. Terrorism mushrooms in these weaker countries. If first world countries are to effectively defend themselves against terrorism, they must support NATO in its endeavor to eliminate terrorist shells in these emerging economies.
This globalizes the increasingly multifaceted threats. The 2004 Madrid and 2005 London and multiple deterred attacks illustrated what transnational radical groups pursue to spread across the multiple verges of shared transatlantic region.
The unwelcomed visitor of international terrorism accompanied by social, racial and spiritual strife is augmented by other threats. There are other threats that are creating their course towards the transatlantic zone from unanticipated quarters.
The dangers touch all countries similarly and no country is immune.5 This realization requires the partnership with NATO giving it a new role in future.
The origins of these threats cling to globalization and shrouded within the economic networks that fuel the engines of global economy. For example, the essentials to construct biological weapons and the resources for their delivery possess a trend of masking behind millions of ordinary vessels meant for genuine trade.
Computer-generated networks transmit novel ideas and chances at immeasurable speeds yet prowling in the data streams are fresh susceptibilities to trade and national security. When the Alliance was formed, cyber-crime and related threats did not present the region with substantial threats.
These dangers advanced by technology require the alliance to review the mandate of NATO. In so doing, NATO will have extra responsibilities in future. Technological threats are currently the most probable source of global insecurity.
Additionally, piracy, which for hundreds of years has been consigned to irritating levels, is on the increase. Illicit networks traffic artilleries, drugs and human are forming long vague shadows traversing international boundaries.
The doubt of consistent energy provisions has the prospect in the disruption of livelihoods and trade at an extraordinary measure. Above this milieu of threats is a financial crisis of momentous degree.
These emerging challenges to safety and security offer NATO a lifeline. Piracy activities have seemingly subdued contemporary measures by security agencies. This offers NATO a chance to help the world deal with piracy in collaboration with the agencies and nation-states.
Expanding Jurisdiction
The NATO leadership is alive to the emerging realities and challenges of the 21st century. NATO is re-inventing itself to deal with the threats to its interests in economic and security frontier. In the last five years, NATO forces have been deployed in its largest operation in history.
The alliance has trained over 150,000 police and army forces to combat ferocious insurgence in Afghanistan, which is more than five thousand kilometers from its headquarters in Brussels.6 This is a departure from the initial objective of the Treaty and evidence of embracing global responsibility.
In Balkan, there are various martial personnel devoted towards advancing firmness and amity.7 NATO ships prowl the high seas off the East African coast to combat the increasing piracy menace associated mostly with the Somali instability.
Although the United States has played a vital role and close to accomplishing its mission with NATO, it remains an important partner in the role played by NATO in securing its interests globally. Its interest particularly in East Africa has been a target by terrorists who find it difficult to execute their mission in the American soil.
As a result, withdrawal from the alliance in pursuit of other commitments would have dire consequences for the US.8 The intensive investment in training and deploying of troops to different locations further indicates the alliance members’ intention to ensure that NATO continues to have a position in the global security sphere.
Renewed responsibilities
The rate of operation by NATO demonstrates that even though the world security setting has altered, the alliance’s raison d’etre has not. It is the continuing responsibility of transatlantic community to assist nations, the alliance and entire world in addressing the grave and frequently detached threats that endanger the world.
In this view, NATO will remain a beacon of unwavering peace and liberty in Europe as was the case in the 20th century. In an address to the NATO members, the Secretary of State named Hillary Clinton informed that the alliance was being challenged by circumstances to deal with greater challenges in the history of mankind.
The secretary stated that to meet the challenges the alliance needed to renovate and fortify their partnerships.9 The challenge by the secretary was positively received by the 28 leaders of the alliance.
In November 2010, the leaders undertook the bold and enormous role of setting forward the vision on how the alliance through NATO would confront the security tasks of the present and the future effectively offering a future to NATO.
In order to modernize and strengthen NATO, the leaders began with the development of a new Strategic Concept. The concept was launched on the platform of the initial premise offered by the earlier transatlantic visions, which included that the Transatlantic Alliance is a society of associates organized by a set of shared beliefs.10
Strategic Concept
The NATO leadership realizes the need to develop a concept that will reflect on the changing security environment and reinvent the alliance to face the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. The strategy is composed of two fundamental and sturdy pillars.
The first pillar is combined defense called the pledge (preserved in Article V of the Washington Treaty) meant to react to the aggression touching one as aggression touching all.
With the Balkans and neighboring countries joining the alliance, the responsibility of NATO has been increasing despite the fact that the region does not face immediate threat.11 The collective defense precept means that NATO will remain an essential alternative in case of imminent threats.
The second pillar of the alliance is co-operative security. The leaders appreciate that security issues need to be addressed proactively as opposed to being ready and reacting to threats that may ensue. Such cooperation is particularly important for the security agencies. The agencies need to work in tandem and synergically to forecast probable security scenarios.12
In implementing the strategic plan of the alliance leadership, NATO has in the last two decades been extending the ideology of partnership. Observably, the scope and value of the alliance’s partnership has remarkably improved. This has enabled NATO to increase its presence in the global security arena.
In an array of ways, NATO is regaining its relevance in the international security community through renewed commitment to partnering with compatible countries and security agencies on shared security concerns. This approach is important in differentiating the NATO of the Cold War era and subsequent years from the NATO of today.
This is an affirmative leap forward for the future of NATO. The partnerships have enabled NATO to correctly construct the right competences, logistical and structural capacity in addressing security concerns of the present and the future.13
With the strategic concept in place, nations inside and outside the transatlantic zone are regaining their confidence in NATO.
In recent years, NATO in collaboration with likeminded countries effectively created a no-go-zone in Libya that culminated in the ouster and consequent killing of one of the Africa’s most intimidating autocratic President called Muammar Gaddafi.
This demonstrated that NATO still has a role to play in enhancing global security. Without the intervention of NATO, the war propagated against civilians would have spilled to the neighboring countries and probably to the entire African continent.
The dismantling of piracy cartels along the coast of East Africa signifies that NATO still has a future. It has a role in stabilizing diverse world locations.
Unique capability for security organization
The parties that are members of the transatlantic alliance possess huge economic, political and military potential. With the largest percentage of its military and structural organization being funded by the world’s most influential economy, NATO has a unique capability for organizing security and operating in any environment through the marshaling of influential forces.
This means that like-minded countries are keen to ensure that NATO remains as a partner in global security issues. While the security setting has altered significantly, the core ideals, the roles of collective defense and cooperative security, as well as the shared capabilities continue to be the essential basis of the alliance.14
With more countries around the world sensing the increasing threats from different corners including terrorism, the role of NATO will become relevant and necessary in future. These countries will be willing to assist and cooperate with NATO to improve security.
They will offer financial and military support to the alliance. The departure of the US from the alliance will have an impact on NATO, but countries which feel that being affiliated with NATO is beneficial to their security will join efforts to fit in the US position in the alliance.15
Organizational structures
Strategic Concept adopted by NATO leadership with a global aspect with the transatlantic zone acting as a security hub indicates that shareholders in the security region are keen to actualize the role of NATO in future. The future of sponsored organizations heavily depends on the well-wish of the partners.
The suggestion by the stakeholders to realign NATO structures is a clear indication that it has a future. They are ready to investing in capabilities, training and mutual command structure that interlink the partners into a cohesive whole.16
NATO requires the assistance of security agencies and military support from outside the transatlantic region to avert security threats emanating from continents such as Asia and Africa propagated by terrorism networks like AL Qaeda.
Such cooperation will ensure that the endeavors as envisaged in Article V are attained.17 The restructuring to involve international players is an indication that it has a future full of responsibilities that require distribution of responsibilities.18
New capabilities
The United States has for decades played a dominant role in NATO. It has committed its economic and military power to the preservation of peace, stability and security in Europe after the destructions of the Second World War.19
The termination of cold war, the downfall of the Berlin Wall and the breakdown of Warsaw Pact obligated NATO to discover a new responsibility to remain relevant in the eyes of the sponsors. By the end of the 20th century, the welfares of the US in the European continent had been entrenched firmly on irreversibility.
Economically, Europe provides a rich market for the United States. The US economy will not succeed without an affluent Europe and vice versa.
Although majority of the alliance members are cutting on defense spending, withdrawal of funding by the US as having accomplished its mission within NATO poses a major threat to the security and economies of the two continents and the world in general.20
NATO is a major conduit for the US in Europe hence America’s withdrawal and ‘returning home’ is ill-advised with dire consequences. For all intents and purposes, the US is virtually a member of the European Union without formally stating so in the treaty.21
There are strong indications from President Barrack Obama administration that the US is committed to fight emerging security threats through NATO. The fight against terrorism is complex.22
It requires expert approach. NATO offers sufficient expertise to execute the responsibility consequently earning a future in global security responsibilities. Given the history of NATO, it is easy to build new capabilities through it as opposed to establishing an entirely new organization.
In this view, having accomplished the mission in Europe, it is the interest of the US for NATO to advance geographically as threats become spread outside Europe but with the same impact as if the threats were directly emanating from Europe.
The EU has made significant steps in ensuring that the presence of the United States is not far-reaching. The countries have grown militarily and politically in leaps and bounds. They now have the capacity to stand on their own without essentially having the US partake in main or trivial roles.23
The European countries now admit that peacekeeping in the continent is their key responsibility. However, the economic interests of the US in Europe do not allow it to withdraw from the continent in totality. To safeguard its interests in Europe, the US will have to engage the services of NATO. This is yet another reason why NATO has a role to play in future.
The US will employ the tactic of retrenching from Europe in a setting that it remains a partner and can send its military as well as offer support but cease running the show and bearing the risks. As has been the case in the recent years, the US will continue to expand the NATO mandate to other global locations to safeguard its interests.
The US engagement with NATO will increase irrespective of the security environment and the funding will most likely increase. However, the engagement with Europe will be based on the needs of military backing. Irrespective of the need for backing, the US will ensure that NATO is well funded to effectively handle any unpredicted security threat.
The US appears to continuously underline the criticality of subsidizing NATO activities and tackling 10-vital competencies. Key among these capabilities is warhead defense, computer-generated and civil-military cooperation.
This approach in altering and increasing the responsibility of NATO while the leading sponsor gives it a future full of global responsibilities in countering threats as opposed to being restricted to transatlantic roles.
“The 21st century dangers of extremism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and cybercrime further justify the continuity of NATO into the future.”24
The non-member countries require to be assured by NATO that despite their non-membership to the alliance, NATO will reciprocate assistance when needed in order to maintain global peace and security.
In this respect, NATO needs to review its objectives with a clear consideration of the changing security environment since the contemporary threats extend beyond ‘armed aggression’ as described in Article V. This way, the countries will give NATO logistic, military and financial support, and an operational future.
America would readily approve such a move. Inevitability, the US is focusing its attention from the transatlantic region to combat contemporary threats of terrorism and cybercrime that mainly originate from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
NATO’s failure to embrace increasing global security responsibility will likely see the US losing interest in investing in the alliance’s future with NATO.25
NATO should partner with likeminded countries to effectively execute its global security mandate such as Australia and Japan.
When such non-member countries provide significant military support, they should form part of the operative planning procedures even though they have no vote in the considerations.26 This way, NATO will have a busy future with mandate beyond that stipulated in the Treaty and particularly Article V.
Conclusions and recommendations
The future of NATO is increasingly challenged by social, economic and political factors. The future of the alliance is gradually being influenced by the diminishing security threats in the European continent. The stability and diffusion of threats has been facilitated by NATO which has played a central role for decades.
The end of cold war, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and stability in the region has placed NATO in a paradox as to what role it should play having accomplished its initial mission of collective defense and security cooperation. Additionally, European countries are increasingly becoming militarily independent.
Most countries in the regions have attained military capacity to defend their homeland from external aggression. The threats that had brought the countries together in an alliance have significantly decreased.
The threats are spread to other global locations. This waters-down the role of NATO in the transatlantic region. However, the future of NATO is still promising given the changing security environment.
In order to maintain its relevance, NATO, its members and leaderships require adapting to the current and emerging security threats of the 21st century. The leadership and members of the alliance should seek ways to restructure NATO command to accommodate membership with a global representation.
The dangers that are likely to threaten the transatlantic alliance will emerge from outside the region. The move by NATO to increase its security surveillance in Africa, Middle East and the coasts off East Africa is commendable but it requires increasing its presence to the global arena.
It is also imperative for NATO to combine its identity of ‘defensive alliance’ with ‘instrument of intervention’ in Europe and afar. In view of the ongoing crisis in Syria, it is evident that the US is a key player in NATO. The Barrack Obama administration has neglected the humanitarian crisis in Syria by refusing to offer extra funding to NATO.
Evidently, the departure of the US from NATO will create a global crisis in security. It should hence be the responsibility of NATO leadership to ensure that the relationship between the US and the transatlantic alliance remains intact.
The members should, therefore, commit to funding NATO’s operations to avert security threats that may spill to the region.
Currently, the US population feels that the alliance members have neglected their responsibility by cutting on military funding thus effectively leaving the US taxpayer to bear the burden. Despite these circumstances, NATO still has a future in combating emerging global security threats.
Goldgeier, J. The Future of NATO. Council on Foreign Relations, 2010, vol. 51,no. 1, p. 1-33.
Hallams, E. & Benjamin, S. Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya. International Affairs, 2012, vol. 88, no. 2, p. 313–327.
NATO Public Diplomacy Division. In Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Web.
NESNERA, Andre. NATO/US Role. 2013. Web.
Pachoud, Jeff. Has NATO Outlived its Usefulness? France: Agence France Press, 2013, Print.
Racius, E. Lithuania in the NATO Mission in Afghanistan: Between Idealism and Pragmatism. Luthuanian Annual Strategic Review, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 187-207.
Rostoks, T. Baltic States and NATO: Looking Beyond the Article V. Strategic and Defence Studies, vol. 4, no. 44, p. 1-12.
Simon, Jeffrey. The Future of the Alliance: Is Demography Destiny? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010. Print.
Yost, D. NATO’s Evolving Purposes and the Next Strategic Concept. International Affairs, vol. 86, no. 2, p. 489-522.
Footnotes
1 NATO Public Diplomacy Division, NATO Handbook.
2 Manea, O., Lord Ismay, Restated, p. 1.
3 Daadler, I., A New Alliance for a New Century, p. 6.
4 Daadler, I., A New Alliance for a New Century, p. 6.
5 Daadler, I., A New Alliance for a New Century, p. 6.
6 Racius, E., Lithuania in the NATO Mission in Afghanistan: Between Idealism and Pragmatism, P. 188.
7 Rostoks, T., Baltic States and NATO: Looking Beyond the Article V, p. 2.
8 Kashmeri, S., NATO: Reboot or Delete? p. 48.
9 Daadler, I., A New Alliance for a New Century, p. 7.
10 Kashmeri, S., NATO: Reboot or Delete? p.56.
11 Yost, D., NATO’s Evolving Purposes and the Next Strategic Concept, p. 491.
12 Pachoud, J., Has NATO Outlived its Usefulness? p. 3.
13 Simon, J., The Future of the Alliance: Is Demography Destiny? p. 201.
14 Curtin, M., The Role of NATO in Today’s World, p. 1.
15 Pachoud, J., Has NATO Outlived its Usefulness? p. 4.
16 Curtin, M., The Role of NATO in Today’s World, p. 1.
17 Michaels, J., NATO after Libya, p. 58.
18 Karl, K., Does NATO Have a Future? For Better or for Worse, p. 1.
19 Nesnera, A., NATO/US Role, p. 1.
20 Erlanger, S., Shrinking Europe Military Spending Stirs Concern, p. 1.
21 Brook, T., NATO Still has a Vital Role, Secretary General says, p. 1.
22 Michaels, J., NATO after Libya, p. 59.
23 Nesnera, A., NATO/US Role, p. 1.
24 Goldgeier, J., The Future of NATO, p. 4.
25 Hallams E. & Benjamin, S., Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya, p. 320.
26 Hallams E. & Benjamin, S., Towards a ‘Post-American’ Alliance? NATO Burden-Sharing after Libya, p. 320.
The international system is the interaction between units whereby various variables at the systemic level come together to influence the external behavior of a state. In this case, foreign policies are determined by the activities at the international level. In other words, the effectiveness of foreign policy depends on the interpretation of international system, states do not formulate policies based on their available resources or manpower but instead rely on the activities taking place at the international system.
Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout came up with ecological triad to explain foreign policy formulation techniques. In this case, the environmental factors are to be considered in coming up with a policy that would determine the relationship between a particular state and another. The ecological triad captures the interaction between policy maker and the international system.
The triad is composed of the actor-state, environment that surrounds the actor and the actor-environment relationship. In foreign policy, the actor is surrounded by the international system. The policy maker must behave within the complex environment that is, the international system. The environment is usually complex because there are various units such as religions, civilizations, economics and international organizations (Held 158).
The environment can constrain the foreign policy maker, can provide opportunities for a certain behavior and can affect the willingness of decision makers to take advantage of those opportunities. The environment controls decision makers because it controls all limits that actors should do or not do.
These entities are actually states and international organizations. The states are only controlled by the international system. In this paper, the involvement of the international organizations that is, the NATO and the UN in Iraq is discussed. In the real sense, realists would argue that the organizations represent the interests and wishes of the developed states such as the US, France, Britain and Russia. On the other hand, the liberalists would argue that the international bodies exist to further the interests of the people of Iraq.
Involvement of the International Actors
NATO established itself in Iraq in 2004when the alliance was charged with the responsibility of assisting the people of Iraq to form an effective military that would counter the influence and the power of the Al-Qaida. Furthermore, the NATO alliance was supposed to offer training services to the Iraqi military in order to be counted as an international body that would operate in accordance to the international standards.
On 31 December 2011, the alliance was requested to leave the country since it was perceived that its mission had been accomplished. Other actors in the international system complained about the existence of NATO since it did not have any legal mandate to operate in the country. The NATO training mission was established after the UN Security Council resolution.
This was after the interim government of Iraq requested the UN to use the NATO to train its soldiers. It should be understood that the formation of the NATO –Iraq was not aimed at suppressing the insurgents, as though by many people. Its main role was to offer technical and military support to Iraqi combatants. In other words, its major role was based on training, offering modern equipments, advising and offering military aid to the forces of Iraq.
The NATO alliance would also guide the Iraqi into becoming an international military force that would offer quality services to the people of Iraq. Since its formation in Iraq, the alliance was effective since it managed to offer training services to 5000 Iraqi soldiers from 2004 to 2011. Apart from training the military personnel, it also trained over ten thousand police and other security staff in the country. The member states of NATO provided various training courses to the Iraqi military.
It is argued that all the 28 members of NATO offered over two thousand courses. The courses were costly by the members of NATO went ahead to offer them to the people of Iraq. Apart from training services, it is true that the Iraqi military received over 115 million Euros in form of military aid through equipments and over 17.7 million Euros in form of trust fund donations.
The activities of NATO can be interpreted differently, depending on the scholar’s viewpoint and orientation. According to liberal scholars and policy makers, the main aim of NATO was to facilitate a democratic process in the country. The security sector would be modernized since the knowledge possessed by the military generals could not allow leaders to exercise personal and autocratic forms of leaderships. In this regard, the Iraqi government had to establish a working relationship with the NATO forces to achieve the above objective.
According to liberalists, there are usually many actors in the international system. In this sense, the international system is a community of both states and human beings. Therefore, the foreign policies of Iraq had to recognize the existence of all actors, including NATO and the UN.
Liberalists would argue that actions of units in the international system must be based on morality and actors must observe international codes and morals. It was upon the realization that the Iraqi military was not observant to the international codes that the NATO set its foot to salvage the situation. The military in Iraq was accused of being partisan since it only favored one side that is, the government. Saddam Hussein used the military to unleash terror to the citizens and eliminate any form of political and cultural opposition.
In this case, the international actors were not happy at all. When the environment gave chance, it was the good time for NATO to act. Through this argument, universal interests are usually valued in the international system. It was the interest of each actor for peace and tranquility to be achieved in Iraq. NATO forces were therefore formed to bring this peace. As Hoffman could argue, states have a duty beyond their borders.
A state should always be concerned about the affairs that take place another state. It is the responsibility of the developed nations to ensure that human rights are to be respected and upheld at a higher esteem worldwide. The United Nations Security Council endorsed the formation of NATO –Iraq since the lives and the militia groups led by Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did not respect THE rights of citizens.
NATO forces would therefore restore normalcy and constancy in the trouble state. The US, France, Britain and Russia had to act beyond their borders since they respect the sanctity of life. Therefore, they had to facilitate training services and other forms of military aid such as provision of equipments and techniques. According to liberalism, the end does not justify the means because the means should be just and humane.
In Iraq, the Hussein administration applied all forms of techniques to achieve state interests. The state interests included domination of the region and cutting links with the west (Gerd 45). This could be obtained by forming a military like administration whereby the rights of people are not respected. This was contrary to the interests and the will of the west, which would always emphasize on consultation and cooperation at the global level.
The west would always argue that problems at the global level need global decisions. Iraq under Sadam Hussein could not think of any possibility of working with the west to end global problems such as terrorism, global economic crisis brought about by fluctuating oil prices and the issues related to the environment. Therefore, the NATO, after being endorsed by the UN, had to intervene to save the humanity.
In case actions are to be taken in the international system, states should consult extensively in order to arrive at a win-win satiation. However, the Iraqi administration under Sadam Hussein wanted a play a zero-sum game where the west and the rest of the world would lose terrible.
This was something that angered the west and the rest of the world. According to liberalists, the policy makers should always be prescriptive meaning that they have to reflect on the outcomes of the policies. The Sadam regime supported terrorism even though the outcomes of the policy were detrimental to the people of Iraq and the rest of the world.
Iraq never appreciate the role of the international regimes such as the international law since impunity was encouraged at all quarters. The west appreciated the fact that world security could be achieved through cooperation. Therefore, activities such as nuclear disarmament and arms proliferation had to be curtailed at all costs, something that Iraq opposed always. There was no option but to facilitate military overhaul in Iraq.
This would be best performed by the NATO alliance. Iraqi leaders believed principles in the state were based on powers but not the norms but not the norms. In this case, actions could be based on unilateralism whereby the state decides to act without consulting anybody, not even the public, which should have the ultimate powers.
Some of the policy makers are always inspired by the realism, which is a very strong theory in the study of foreign relations. According to these policy makers and observers, the involvement of the NATO and the UN in the affairs of Iraq could be interpreted differently.
To this scholars, the unity of analysis in the international system is the state whereby the state is usually guided by its national interests. The international system in this case exists according to the Hobbestain state of nature. In other words, the international system dictates what should be done.
The NATO and the UN took advantage of the current nature of the system to invade Iraq and impose policies. For instance, the developed nations took advantage of the confusion in Iraq to change the military ideology. This would only benefit them since the military would be sympathetic and appreciative to the activities of the west in the world.
Consequently, the US and the west benefited a lot since Iraq had to pay in form of oil. Indeed, the US benefited so much since a lot of oil was transported from Iraq to the US. In case states intervene in a foreign state, the interest is usually to obtain something.
This is true to some extent because the US has never bothered to marshal the NATO forces to intervene in Somalia, even after the claims that the Alshabbab insurgent group is associated with the world’s most feared terrorism group, the Al-Qaeda. The US intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the availability of the natural resources. This means that the US was only interested in natural resources but not bringing back sanity.
Concerning the existence of NATO and the UN, they only exist as long as the powerful states would permit. The international organizations do not serve the interests of the poor states. For instance, the US invaded Iraq even after the UN had advised against the invasion.
This means that the US was only concerned about its national interests, which was security. After the 9/11 attack, the US resolved to come up with long terms policies that would ensure that its citizens coexist in peace worldwide. Due to this, the hotspots in the world were focused, which led to the sponsoring of military training in the Middle East. Therefore, the NATO and the UN involvement in Iraq were not in the interest of the people of Iraq but for the interest of the American people.
Currently, the peace witnessed in Iraq is conducive for American investors since they can operate without the fear of losing their stocks. It is very rare for the US to fund projects that do not benefit its population. For instance, the US cannot help in disarming an enemy, which does not pose any security threat to its citizens.
For a long time, the US has focused on destabilizing the Middle East because if given chance, the Middle East states can pose a serious challenge to the existence of the US and other developed nations from the west, mainly because of oil. The US allowed the formation of NATO-Iraqi alliance only to strengthen its presence and power in the Middle East, but not to better the living standards of the Iraqis.
This shows that military alliance between the NATO and Iraq was out of fear and suspicion that characterizes the international system. In the international system, life is brutal, short-lived and nasty whereby states engage in a zero-sum game always. States value their sovereignty so much to an extent of neglecting ethics (Koehn and Rosenau 107).
UN Failures
On the flipside, the body has had a number of failures in its quest to uphold world peace and security. The UN was unable to bring order into Somalia through UNOSOM (United Nations Mission to Somalia), consequently leading to its withdrawal in 1995.
This was also the case in1994 during the Rwandan genocide whereby the United Nations Mission Rwanda (UNAMIR) was unable to stop the genocide due to lack of men and weapons. In Bosnia Herzegovina, the UNPROFORC (United Nations Protection Force) was unable to stop the massacre of Serbians.
Perhaps one of the most notable incidents on the inability of the UN to promote peace and security in the world was the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. This went against a UN resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002. The resolution called for new inspections to ascertain whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The US on its part ignored this resolution and instead invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003.
Peace and security remains a major challenge to global governance. In many instances, the UN has been indecisive or unable to act to promote peace and security. This has led to a situation where matters on peace and security are championed by a handful of nations under the guise of collective security. In most cases, these countries will be pursuing their own interests.
This has consequently led to issues such as terrorism arising. Terrorism has come about because of radicalism by Islamic fundamentalist who feel that the US led war on terror targets Islam as a whole. This in effect has led to violence and the loss of many lives as Islamist fundamentalists under the auspices of the global terror network Al Qaeda and other terror groups wage war on the US on various fronts.
The September 11 bombing of the World Trade Center in the US was a hallmark of terrorist operations. This in turn led to the US invading Afghanistan with the aim of smoking out Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the bombings. This war on terror has also been played out in the Middle East pitting Israel, an American ally, against various Palestinian groups such as Hamas (Porter 185).
In general, the UN and NATO have not been able to function independently since they only serve the interests of the powerful states. The UN for instance has been accused on several occasions for siding with the superpower.
A supranational organization refers to a union or a group of companies that have membership in multiple nations. A single business that qualifies this description can also be considered a supranational organization.
The nations relinquish part of their power through political, financial, and martial alliances with the view of advancing the core agenda of a supranational organization. This highlight suggests that organizations such as OPEC and NATO and unions such as the EU and NAFTA fit the definition of supranational organizations.
This paper discusses NATO’s purpose, its current and most significant activities, and its membership.
Purpose
Supranational organizations advance the discourses of international relations that cover collective interactions that exist between international communities. These societies include homelands, persons, and even states (Nau 19). International organizations push the development agenda in different nations.
Martin and Simmons present the subject of international relations as a political science component that deals with issues of foreign affairs, including the contribution of supranational, multinational, and nongovernmental organizations to advancing the global defense, political, money-making, and social agenda (732).
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which is also referred to as North Atlantic Alliance pursues international relations discourses. However, it focuses on enhancing collective defense of member states in response to any external inversion.
NATO’s main offices are based in Brussels, Belgium. It was created following the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. At its creation, its purpose was stated as maintaining general security around the globe.
However, its purpose expanded to include curtailing the exploration of weapons of mass destruction, defense against terrorism following September 11 attacks, and addressing issues of cyber attacks (U.S. Economy par.5). It has also extended its mission to work as a political and military alliance to meet the changing battlefield demands.
In this extent, although its main purpose is to ensure security of the member states, it also serves the role of addressing any aggression that emanates from non-member states since any violence threatens peace and stability of North Atlantic region.
For example, during the 2014 NATO’s summit, Russia’s inversion of Ukraine was among the organization’s agendas, although Ukraine is not a member of the alliance.
Current and Most Significant Activities
Since its formation, NATO has engaged in various activities that are consistent with its purpose. One of its most significant activities was its response to the threat of terrorism to member states by Al-Qaida and Taliban revolts.
The efforts of NATO to engage Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in the war resulted in the spreading of the war into the North West parts of Pakistan. In 2004, NATO forces launched attacks to flash out and kill Taliban militia and al-Qaida insurgents who had sought refuge in Pakistan.
This situation led to the emergence of Waziristan insurgency in 2007. In May 2011, the US Navy SEALs managed to execute Osama bin Laden, the key player of al-Qaida. In less than a month following his killing, NATO began to work on a strategy to exit from Afghanistan.
During this time, the UN sought to engage the Afghan’s government and the Taliban insurgents in peace talks to restore tranquility so that NATO forces could exit from Afghanistan (Keppel, Jean-Pierre, and Ghazaleh 62). In Afghanistan, it deployed an excess of 84,000 troops during the peak of its operations (U.S. Economy par.5)
NATO sent people to train Iraqi forces in the attempt to ensure stability in the Middle East region. It also enforced the ‘no-fly zone’ policy in Libya in 2011 following the passing of ‘Resolution 1973’ of the UN. The resolution called for a ceasefire. It permitted NATO military to take up the role of civilian protection.
This move led to the toppling and killing of President Gaddafi. NATO also participated in enforcing the ‘no-fly Zone’ policy in 1992 during the Bosnia war. In 1994, it shot down four airplanes that belonged to Bosnia after they had contravened the ruling.
It launched military strikes in Yugoslavia in 1999 and used its ACE force to provide humanitarian support to Kosovo’s refugees. In 2009, NATO participated in an anti-piracy assignment in the Gulf of Aden.
Membership Requirements
NATO draws its membership mostly from North America and Europe. It has almost 30 associates. Its newest ones are Croatia and the State of Albania, which joined the body in 2009.
The business of NATO is handled by prime ministers or presidents of member states, ministers in charge of foreign affairs, and chief heads of the respective member states’ defense forces. The influence of member states is enhanced through alliances such as Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Mediterranean Dialogue, and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (U.S. Economy par.12)
Conclusion
Formed in 1949, NATO pursues political and military discourses that are aimed at shaping international relations to enhance peace and stability of its member States. This mission involves the prevention and reaction to external inversions, terrorism, and cyber attacks.
The organization accepts that peacekeeping is becoming a challenging task that needs intervention from external forces. Thus, to enhance territorial integrity of its member states, it seeks alliances across the globe.
Globalization has made it the business of all players in the world to ensure long-term peace in the transatlantic region since military forces from nations around this region cannot enhance peace and stability in the area without external assistance.
Works Cited
Keppel, Gilles, Milelli Jean-Pierre, and Pascale Ghazaleh. Al Qaeda in its own words. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2008. Print.
Martin, Lisa, and Beth Simmons. “Theories and empirical studies of international institutions.” International Organization 52.4(1998): 729–757. Print.
Nau, Henry. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, Ideas. New York, NY: Palgrave, 2008. Print.
Communication in contemporary business activity is fundamentally a competitive activity, a rhetorical gamble in which writers and speakers attempt to gain benefit over other forces that challenge their audience’s attention. Of course, there is nothing new about the idea of competition, especially in contemporary studies of business and particularly in discussions of strategy, industry analysis, and marketing. However, this conception has yet to be used much in studies outside of these more customary areas of business. Competition can offer a familiar way of understanding activities that are not in the mainstream of business studies but are nonetheless essential to its flourishing practice. One of these activities is business communication.
Main body
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its documentation have been chosen as the main subject of the present report. The three factors of communication held by this organization will be regarded. These are the website, the propaganda brochures, and newsletters or diplomatic lettering. As for the actuality of this work, it is obvious, as NATO’s further extension for the account of Eastern European countries stays the actual issue of the everyday newsreels.
The history of this organization is rather interesting. NATO became a result of the Brussels Treaty, signed by the five western European countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and France. By signing this treaty in 1949, countries created a united system of collective defense and collective security. Then the USA and Canada joined the pact, and the main purpose of the organization became the confrontation with the Eastern Socialistic Block and Warsaw Pact Organization. It became one of the most important actors of the Cold War.
Now, after the end of the Cold war, and the dissemination of the Soviet Union and the whole Socialistic Block, NATO has transformed from military to military-political organization.
The website of this organization is made with rather a friendly interface and contains all the necessary information for the interested reader. The structure of the web page is rather comfortable for any World Wide Web surfer, as all the necessary links have been collected on the starting page of the organization. The web page is updated regularly, and the new publications are made in both working languages of the organization: English and French. Moreover, publications in the languages of all state members can also be found there. The potential content analysis will show that the visual appearance of the page is friendly, and not catchy, so eyes will not stiffen while the user looks through the page. As for the information available, it has been said above, that all the articles are in English and French languages. The publications placed at the site consider the history of the organization, the purposes of its creation, both during the Cold War and after it. Here the reader will be able to find the charter and the texts of the concluded treaties, including the Foundation Brussels Treaty. Everybody who is fond of the processes of NATO extension will find the maps, on which all the acting and potential members pointed out. Geographical games, checking the knowledge of European and North American flags and capitals will be interesting as for the children, who are fond of geography, so for the adults, who want to have a 5-minutes break.
All the available brochures can be found on the website in PDF format, but such printed materials are usually made for propaganda, and these brochures are distributed during the students’ conferences and NATO academies, which are held every two years.
The contents of these brochures differ greatly. The information which is available on the pages of such materials may concern recent events, where NATO states-members or the heads of these states participated, such as the recent Riga conference, where the issues of Afghanistan were regarded, and one of the most important issues of the agenda is the process of further extension. The brochure on the matter of the Riga summit provides an idea, that the North Atlantic alliance became a hostage of its own extension, as the heading state (the USA) is not rather successful in persuading all the members to choose the priority headings of the activity. The information about the military contingent, its location, and the operations held by it is also available, and no one is restricted to get to know about the innovations made in tactical and strategic equipment of the NATO army.
Brochures also include information about the programs implemented, or which are at the stage of elaboration. These programs concern the processes of collective security and collective defense elaboration, the status of the negotiations touching upon these issues. Various briefings are presented in the brochures, explaining and providing official points of view on the most burning issues. The only disadvantage of the brochures is that their number on the conferences is restricted, and not everyone who is willing has an opportunity to gain the information he is interested in, as the discussions and the reports made during the conferences do not usually touch upon the theoretical problems regarded in the brochures.
In the concluding part of the report, it is necessary to say, that the organization with five-decade history is not in the necessity of advertisement. All the necessary propaganda, claimed to populate the organization, or to change its image is placed on the web page or published in special brochures, dedicated especially to this issue.
Conclusion
Internal lettering is one of the most important factors of any international organization. As it is complexly structured, internal lettering is not only the measure of information exchange, but it is the mean of coordinating the work by the whole organization. Internal lettering is of the formal character, and is not always available for the reader, as it is of no interest for the inhabitant. It may be of scientific interest only for the researcher, and it is not in the wide access. But everything that can be found tells about the character of this lettering, its aims, and purposes. Any department has its own secretariat, which is responsible for inter-departmental lettering. These letters are composed according to the specified form of internal lettering, elaborated especially for intergovernmental organizations, such as NATO is.
An overview of the decisions taken at the NATO Summit in Riga, Latvia, 2006. NATO brochure, 2007.
A comprehensive introduction describing how NATO works and covering policy development in the principal areas of Alliance activity. NATO brochure, 2004
Military matters: The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO brochure, 2006
Tackling challenges of defence reform, NATO brochure, 2004.
The North Atlantic treaty organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 in Washington America. The treaty was signed by foreign ministers from eleven different countries that included America, Portugal, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Britain, and Iceland. The organization was then formed with the aim of assisting each of the member countries incases of any attacks by other countries. The number of the countries was later increased to 13 countries in 1952 when Greece and Turkey joined. In 1955 West Germany joined the organization making the number to be 14 countries then, but currently, there are 26 member states (Sandler, and Hartley, 1999)
On the other hand, the United Nations was founded in 1945 when the UN Charter was ratified by China. It was founded to replace the League of Nations. Currently, there are 192 member countries with the headquarter being in New York. The United Nations is an international organization that aims to necessitate corporation among member countries in terms of international policies, security, economic development, and humanitarian rights (United Nations, 2004)
Wilton, (2001) asserted that the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization are two different groups though they affect the world in the same way. The United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization both work hard to achieve a difference in the world today by striving for peace and prosperity. The similarity between the two organizations is that they are similar in the way they are organized because they are structured into various groups. United Nations and North Atlantic treaty organizations have councils, secretary-general, and the secretariat.
Martinetti (2006) reported that the United Nations is made up of six administrative classes which include:
The general assembly, which is the main organ for any decision made.
The secretariat deals with things that are necessary for the body to run for example the facilities needed for the conference and other informational materials.
The economic and social council help in assisting member countries to develop economically or socially through enhancing cooperation and development.
The international court of justice, which provides judicial cases to international matters.
The Security Council, which deals with matters of security by promoting peace or providing solutions for peace in war-torn countries.
Trusteeship Council, which strives to promote the trustworthy among the members’ countries on matters pertaining to peace and cooperation in business transactions or intercontinental treaties. Although this organ of the organization was later suspended from operations in 1994.
By contrast, Asmus, (2002) asserted that the North Atlantic organization is made up of the following:
Defense planning committee, which is responsible for the matters dealing with defense against any attack or retaliation measures.
Nuclear Atlantic corporation council, which deals with issues concerning nuclear use in the war.
In both the organizations, the top governing body is chaired by the secretary-general who is responsible for convening the meeting which they chair in the headquarters. Also, both United Nations and NATO have a general headquarter where matters concerning the organization are made from (Martinetti, 2006)
The United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization have a common origin of formation since they were formed after the major crisis of the world. The United Nations was formed during and after World War II where China, Britain, America, and Russia met in America to plan for a peacekeeping organization which was later to become United Nations. The North Atlantic treaty organization on the other hand was formed after World War II just as the United Nations was being formed.
During the formation of NATO, many western countries viewed the policies of Russia then called the united soviet social republic as a threat in terms of nuclear and missile use hence becoming a threat to other countries. This threat from USSR led to the Berlin blockade which began in 1948 marking the beginning of negotiations between Canada, America, and European countries which later to the formation of the North Atlantic treaty organization.
Therefore the two organizations were formed in the same decade with a four-year difference, united formed first in 1945 and NATO in 1949. both the united nations and NATO is dedicated to promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law among the member countries governed by the principles of the united nations charter (Sandler, and Hartley, 1999)
Martinetti, (2006) indicated that although United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization had the same origin their aims of formation were different. The United Nations was formed which the aim of facilitating cooperation in international law and security, economic development, and human rights while the NATO was formed to ensure the freedom and security of its members by political and military means in accordance with the principles of United Nations charter.
Its first task was to deter and defend member countries against any attack from other countries. NATO was responsible for the stability and security of the Euro-Atlantic area only. Another difference between the two bodies is on the headquarter. The united nations headquarter located in the United States of America in New York City while the north Atlantic treaty organization have its headquarters in Belgium, Brussels city.
Daclon, (2004) asserted that in addition the United Nations and NATO differ in the number of member countries. The current number of member states and the founding member’s state differ significantly between the two bodies. The founding number of the NATO in 1949 in Washington was 11 countries with most of them being from Europe and the American continent. This number has increased to 26 members currently.
The membership to NATO is limited to non-member states as only European states are eligible to join NATO and also such nations which wish to join NATO must be approved by the current member states, this restricts many non-European nations from joining the organization. Countries wishing to join NATO are however required to follow a mechanism called the membership action plan which was approved in a summit in Washington. The country applying for membership should present a report on its progress on five main areas that include:
Its domestic laws should be compatible with NATO cooperation.
Should be able to provide enough resources to its armed forces.
The candidate should be able to contribute to NATO’s defense and missions.
The country should be in a position to provide security and safeguard sensitive information.
The country should be willing to settle international disputes peacefully and commit itself to safeguard rule of law and human rights.
Hans (2005) asserted that the United Nations was formed by 50 member states but currently it has 192 member states from the whole over the world, unlike the North Atlantic treaty organization which seems to be regional. Membership in United Nations is governed by the United Nations charter which sets the following guidelines for membership:
A country can join the UN as long as it’s a peace-loving nation accepting the obligations contained in the UN charter and it’s willing to carry out the obligation given.
Any state allowed to join the UN will be affected by the decision made by the general assembly with a recommendation from the Security Council.
According to the united nations, (2004) its claimed that the united nations under its charter, five official languages are being recognized which include English, French, Russian language, and Spanish, although lately the Arabic language has been added in 1973. The original five languages are used in the UN general assembly, Security Council, and economic or social council. The secretariat uses English and French languages in their meetings.
On another side, the North Atlantic treaty organization, on the other hand, uses both English and French only as of the official languages. These two languages are used in the Security Council meetings and any other official meeting convened by the organization (Martinetti, (2006)
The organizational structure of the united nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization differs to some extent. Each of The 26 member states in NATO sends a delegation to its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Each of the delegations sends by each country represents the permanent representative and it is the ambassador of NATO. These members assemble to form the North Atlantic Council which meets once a week this council also meets the foreign affairs ministers of each of the countries or defense ministers and head of states where decisions on NATO policies are discussed.
The meetings are chaired by the secretary-general. Another powerful delegation is the military representative plus senior armed forces officer. The representative from the military form the military committee which is responsible for NATOs political authorities undertaking the measures necessary for the common defense of the member countries. The principal role of the military committee is to give direction and advice on military issues. In addition, they provide a guide on military issues to the organization commanders whose members meet to discuss the military affairs.
On the other hand, Martinetti, (2006) asserted that the united nations system is based on the five principal bodies with the top-ranking being the general assembly which is the main decision-making organ. The general assembly consists of all the member nations and they meet regularly yearly under the president elected from the country member state. The secretary-general makes the remarks first and then the president of the assembly.
For any decision is made voting is done and the 2/3 majority passes the decision made. Another important organ of the United Nations is the Security Council which is responsible for maintaining the peace and security of the member countries. The Security Council is made up of 15 countries. Also, the economic and social council is another important organ in United Nations which is responsible for assisting the general assembly in promoting economic and social cooperation internationally.
The secretariat is another important organ of the United Nations which is headed by the secretary-general. The secretariat provides information and facilities to United Nations bodies’ meetings. Finally, the international court of justice plays the role of providing judicial services to member states on matters concerning international laws. The international court of justice is located in The Hague, Netherlands. It, therefore, shows that the United Nations has more structured organs dealing with specific matters unlike NATO which is limited to only two top governing organs (Sandler, and Hartley, 1999)
Asmus, (2002) reported that in NATO the fundamental commitment of all members of the Alliance to each other’s security is enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack against one member country is considered as an attack against all. The Alliance’s integrated military structure and common defense planning procedures underpin this commitment to collective defense.
This is a different situation in the United Nations where in1945 UN Charter envisaged a system of regulation that would ensure that all the nation’s security is under the control of the United Nations. The united nations promote peace among its countries and any worrying issue concerning each other countries is solved out in the general meeting hence promoting peace and not revenge missions as in the NATOs policies. The financing of the two bodies varies depending on the organization. The United Nations is financed from the assessed and voluntary contributions of the member countries. The financing of the UN is done by the assessment in a regular two-year program. While NATO each of the member countries are required to contribute a fixed amount every year. (Martinetti, (2006)
Conclusion
The contrast and comparison between United Nations and North Atlantic treaty organizations are quite challenging to apprehend since NATO has its most decision made by the United Nations being the supreme governing body in the world. The contrast between the two cannot come out clearly as it may be required. It is also disquieting to observe how the UN/NATO relationship has changed within a few years.
In 1994, at its Brussels summit, NATO had declared its readiness to cooperate with the United Nations in peacekeeping and other operations under the authority of the UN Security Council. In December 1997, the Final Report of a high-level International Task Force on the Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions regarded as “doubtful that NATO would consider taking enforcement action, at least out of the area, without Security Council authorization, therefore the real coexisting relationship between the two bodies has become complex that even the contrast between the two become complex.
Reference:
Asmus, R D (2002): Opening NATO’s Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era. Columbia press.
Daclon, (2004): Security through Science. Secretary General of NATO, journal; Vol.4.
Hans, K (2005): United Nation in Law Review. Polytechnic University of the Philippines journal; Vol.4.
Martinetti, I (2006): Reforming Oversight and Governance of the UN Encounter.
Sandler, T and Hartley, K (1999): The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and into the 21st Century. Cambridge press.
United Nations (2004): Basic Facts about the United Nations.
Wilton, D (2001): United Nations. Etymologies & Word Origins: Letter U. Web.
The paper presents comprehensive study on the frameworks of NATO-CSDP community as well as the challenges the alliance poses to the former EU-NATO cooperation. The discussion is basically based on the concept of community applied within the NATO-EU alliance. Various conflicts have been faced by the alliance, some of which include incomplete overlap, fallout between nations and application of incomprehensive frameworks.
The study discusses the nature of approach used in ensuring existence of a strong international security body based on shared values from various member states. So much attention has been given to the possible nature of dichotomy between competition and complementarily resulting from CSDP-NATO relations. This is because the two factors dominated the previous EU-NATO relation to the extent of forming good percentage of their security policies.
European Union and North American participant’s views on security matters based on community perspective are also discussed in details. Then the conclusion based on the impact of the alliance on culture and its impact on the North Atlantic security community framework.
How has the emergence of the CSDP affected the EU-NATO relationship?
Introduction
Development of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) took place within the institutional context of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) (Merlingen and Ostrauskaite, 2008: 6). The institutions main concern and goal is international security based on shared values amongst the member states.
NATO-CSDP relationship has been considered corporate practice since all the countries involved have declared some percentage of social commitment on the same (Adler, 2005: 15). The new focus brought by the CSDP into NATO-EU relationship presented a different perspective from the previous one, which made this relationship be identified by inter-organizational competitions with shallow insights on their operations.
However, the inclusion of CSDP has ensured the institution’s success despite many identified inefficiencies (Hofmann, 2009:47). There has been lack of adequate plans and strategies which has led to sharing of assets without considering the investment pumped in by the old member states. There are so many elements which resulted from this relationship such as NATO-EU Capability Group, European Union Cell at SHAPE (EUCS), the NATO Permanent Liaison Team (NPLT), and the alliance’s operational headquarters.
At the centre of the cooperation is the Berlin-Plus agreement of 2003, which allowed the sharing of assets by the member states. Such agreement ignored the nature of cooperation on the ground at the presence of all organizations making any meetings on the political domain informal. The cooperation between CSDP-NATO does not recognize European Union as the overall decision-maker within the alliance (Howoth, 2009:95).
Negative influences on CSDP-NATO relations
The relationship between NATO-CSDP is characterized by major constraints, especially in decision making as well as involvement of many governments. The potential of the alliance lies in contribution made by member states and not EU as a supreme body.
Lisbon Treaty led to the abolishment of what was referred to as European Union three-pillar framework, leading to the current management system known as second pillar framework, which was meant for solving civil-military international crisis management correlated to Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The treaty led to the creation of developmental frames and structures meant for crisis management (Grevi, 2009: 60).
Inclusion of members from various governments was meant to reinforce the relationship, however, the partnership of EU-NATO with multilateral security agencies seem to be in jeopardy. Before CSDP joined the partnership, the use of military capabilities was given priority by EU-NATO relations supported by Berlin-Plus treaty. Examples range from 2003 interventions in Macedonia, Bosnia to Democratic Republic of Congo.
However, the coming of CSDP has shifted the focus from military-oriented interventions to non-military missions as key to promoting peace amidst conflict. This has made United Nations (UN) a significant ally since it plays major role in authorizing any action. International crisis management has further involved cooperation by African Union (AU) in dealing with multilateral security concerns.
The European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) have similar goals where international security is concerned and also refer to a base of values that are common. Overlap has caused many stumbling blocks within the confines of cooperation amongst the three bodies (Hoffman, 2009).
However, the two bodies have been considered critical elements within the institution where Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) are developed. The different views on the impact of the CSDP on the North Atlantic security relationship have ranged from warnings that unnecessary competition will be fostered with NATO from the autonomous EU framework to a division of labour between the two structures as a result of the European operational experience, useful to both and enduring (Hoffman, 2009).
The identification of the characteristics between competition and complementarily has occurred in various circumstances. Their relationship has been viewed in a different perspective where the NATO-CSDP is seen as “a community of practice” which connotes a group of actors interacting on a particular domain of action to which they have a social commitment.
Inter-organizational networks within the alliance have been further complicated by the concepts on either completion or complementarity where these relations are concerned. One of the critical features of the NATO-CSDP connection that cooperation is capable of making some significant move despite various insufficiencies within their lines of operation owing to the non-existence of a comprehensive framework.
Given that there is no evidence of an all-out competitive pattern as a starting point, the EU and NATO share expectations usually taken for granted based on the fact that none of them will resort to the use of force or threats or make any preparations for the same when conflicts arise.
This justifies the essence of the community perspective shared by the member states, a good example being the North Atlantic security community. However, there is still the problem of identifying the way the activities of the EU in security and defence matters have an impact within the context of a community. Various elements such as collective identity, identification of common threats, compatibility where primary values are concerned, social and religious institutions are essential components of the security community.
Security communities are “imagined” (Adler, 1997) and their existence relies on participants acting “as if there is a community” (Waever, 1998: 77). Security communities are as such “Communities of practise”, marked by a domain of knowledge, a community of people, shared practices, and a sense of joint enterprise (Adler, 2005: 17).
Socially recognised forms of activity, done on the basis of what members learn from each other, and capable of putting it into action, correctly or incorrectly are referred to as practices. If the concern is the impact to international security issues on the North Atlantic Security community of a specific “European Approach”, then what remains at stake is not the “dependable expectations of peaceful change” that are relied upon by such a community (Adler and Barnett, 1998:30).
Much as the clashes over Iraq were not about an issue presented by some actors as an existential threat to the whole community; such expectations were not put to question. The questions that arose were about the North Atlantic security community’s ties exceeding the dependable expectations of peaceful change, most notably multilateralism and threat identification convergence.
Fears that North Atlantic multilateralism would be challenged by the autonomous EU framework for the development and use of member states’ military capabilities being built and military operations being launched sometimes without consultation of NATO were raised (Menon, 2003). The difference in the EU and US approaches to counterterrorism was also stressed by scholars and revealed by the comparison of the ESS with the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2002 (Berenskoetter, 2005).
Grasping how the dynamics of the EU’s external action have an impact on the practices of the North Atlantic security community was linked to the cultural change issue, as suggested by the frequent and sometimes interchangeable references to the nature of European culture in CSDP related studies.
There have been difficulties in differentiating the EU’s security culture, thus providing an example for the lack of conceptual clarity of these notions. The four elements commonly highlighted when it comes to strategic culture are; ideologies, collective sharing, group-specific and relatively stable. Strategic culture research can be held to have began with implicit references in the cultural explanation for specific national ways of war put forward in the 1930s and ’40s.
The first conceptualization of the term “strategic culture” is a complementary element for explanation as to why significant powers with similar military capacities did not share the same outlook because of geographic and historic specificities during the cold war. However, ignorance on the fact that cultural reference was liable to manipulation by the elite led to the critique concerning strategic culture as a context for action.
However, strategic culture in the 1990s was linked to a constructivist approach as an independent explanatory variable for actors’ behaviour (Johnston, 1995). Significant shortcomings on both sides were revealed as a result of dialogue with those who supported the concepts. Rather than general definitions of strategic culture, the emphasis has thus shifted towards case studies.
The tendency was to consider these frameworks as resistant to change and tracking the dynamics of an emerging culture going against such tendency (Ramel, 2003:103). However, traumatic events triggered significant shifts (Rousell and Morin, 2007: 20-21). Otherwise, the changes would be mere fixing towards international influences (Longhurst, 2004: 18). Even then, the various adjustments proved not sufficient enough to explain the emerging process owing to the methodology applied in most contexts.
There is in appropriation in identifying the European strategic culture as a unified set of ideas that would be completely opposed to the US strategic culture because it is just emerging (Kagan, 2002). The degree of convergence between EU member state outlooks has been the focus of studies, especially emerging European strategic culture (Gingerich, 2006; Meyer, 2006).
Inevitably, persisting divergences are pointed out as well as agreement among these actors on core elements as follows; the EU has to be able to count on military capabilities that it can use autonomously from NATO, given the North Atlantic’s relationship uniqueness as a security community, this autonomy can only be developed in cooperation with NATO and the US. At the same time, its comprehensive range of tools and especially its ability to tie the use of armed forces to non-military missions will is the EU’s main contribution.
The EU’s action is about providing collective security through international crisis management, not about collective defence. CSDP is about enhancing international crisis management, not a means for narrow-defined European interests.
Concerning differentiation between strategic culture and security culture, one tendency is considering strategic culture on the basis of being clearly military while security culture both in terms of tools and outlook looks more comprehensive (Gariup, 2009).
It is therefore fair to consider that cultural change both in the EU and the North Atlantic level is triggered by a European strategic culture. Support for this is in the observations of a move between CSDP and NATO, with notably a growing EU-US bilateral security cooperation. In the EU as well, the major dynamics of its relationship with the alliance lies in differentiation.
The Approach of the Relationship
The relationship focuses on the use of community approach in tackling issues. However, there has been concern on whether the relations will complement or results into competition between NATO and CSDP. The two bodies will have to be considered as separate entities within the partnership owing to different approaches each take towards conflict resolution. Complementary view considers cooperation at organizational level inclusive of all limits despite its focus on differences in capabilities and nature of operations involved.
From concrete analysis, community of practice approach is seen as one of the perspectives capable of incorporating various essential elements of NATO-CSDP relationship. The approach simplified nature of interactions amongst different organizations and institutions across the member countries.
Communities of practice ensured existence of essential elements in the NATO and CSDP since they operated from the same organization of military command terming their operations as international crisis management. NATO’s structures of command and operation principles were incorporated within the European framework owing to the alliance (Varwick and Koops, 2009: 120-122).
Inclusion of CSDP in the alliance created a common point of knowledge as key focus within the community of practice, therefore considering NATO-EU relations special kind of community (Adler, 2005: 17). However, the alliance remained vulnerable in terms of formal organization structure as well as social aspect.
The framework brought by CSDP presented freedom to participants in the NATO-EU relations with regard to full participation in their operations. The relationship is basically based on the Berlin-Plus agreement first applied in Macedonia and Bosnia in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
Framework of the cooperation
The emergence of CSDP led to the adoption of Berlin-Plus agreement as to the core element within the relations. The first trial was made in the Macedonia Bosnia interventions, where the EU took over through its alliance operations.
The emergence brought about two concepts through which the alliance could operate the first being through Berlin-Plus treaty and the second allowing CSDP operate on its own without NATO’s involvement but utilizing the alliance’s properties in their operations. NATO-EU capabilities were found to be incomprehensive due to lack of formal framework within the cooperation like that found in EUCS and NPLT.
Communication constraints
The formation of NATO-CSDP relations raised concern in the mode of communication used. Communication protocol used within the relations presented some level of constraints; an example is a case where EU officers have to pass through NATO officials for clearance on certain information at national levels (Roussel and Morin, 2007).
The communication channel also considers level of expertise as the various organizations focus on links between NATO and other agencies such as CMPD. The relations have focused on separating contacts from the civilian component of CSDP developing existence of more essential constraints. The conditions have been considered by military personnel as frustrating and hence permitting cooperative practices.
The lack of cooperation in development concepts has led to duplication and adoption of policies and assets, which ultimately resulted into competition. Some crucial definitive terms are ignored in the CSDP meetings and documentations making relations within the cooperation a nightmare. For example, CSDP finds it challenging to use terms such as integration and cooperation and instead uses terms such as coherence which is not acceptable to military practitioners.
The constraints have led to many shortcomings such as wastage of scarce resources and at the same time putting civilian personnel and military in jeopardy due to unnecessary delays in troop deployment (Hofmann, 2009: 47). The constraint is best revealed by the current mission in Afghanistan, where CSDP police mission does not enjoy any protection from ISAF troops on the ground.
Social Aspect
One may ask the question on how the European strategic culture affects the framework of the North Atlantic security community, taking into account that a shared security culture appears as a permissive element for security communities. A security culture like this is a system of socially constructed sense concerning international threats, implying their common identification description and a common mindset about ways to respond to them (Pouliot and Lachmann, 2004: 136).
The idea of a challenge from the North Atlantic security culture through the European strategic culture given the picture of the European strategic culture sketched here is suggestive. This is because both though less stable, are more inclusive than usual descriptions of national strategic cultures would have it.
Their concern centres around collective actors, provision of a general consensual view on the international environment, and even beyond considering the military domain as the essential way of dealing with the security issues they are concerned with incomprehensive coverage of all security concerns by members or participants (Mérand and Pouliot, 2008).
The challenge that European culture references regarding security pose to North Atlantic evolutions should not be overrated. An example is the war on terror which was the position taken by the Bush administration after 9/11, while the EU’s outlook was more comprehensive and less aggressive.
But in actuality, the EU’s position on preventive action in handling threats points to a framework of pre-emption quite similar to the US (Goede, 2008). The appearance of challenging and conforming elements in the European strategic culture’s articulation with North Atlantic references comes as no surprise.
The difficult relationship between culture and international security has to be taken into consideration when trying to grasp the range and impact of the changes that accompany the emergence of a European strategic culture (Weldes et al., 1999). The fact that anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s semiotic approach on culture informed both takes on the strategic culture and security culture as highly suggestive.
Following Max Weber, Geertz argued, “that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun,” which would be his culture (Geertz, 1973a: 5). The definition of culture as “a system of symbols creating meaning within a social group” is a follow up conception as a result of that argument. The conceptualization of security culture as a variable of security communities is an approach inspired by Geertz. Geertz also defines religion as “cultural system”.
Following the lead of his works, scholars have tended “to represent culture as essentially static” while “accounts of how the effects of culture evolve over time are relatively rare” which is why this ambiguity is observed. Geertz’ statement that formulations of other peoples’ symbols systems must be actor-oriented needs not be contradictory to his notions regarding culture.
In line with the interest he showed for the influence exerted by particular actors in the elaboration and dissemination of ideologies, nationalism is seen as actor-centred approach (Ortner, 1997: 7). The development of CSDP provides an excellent example in this context since through EU specific practices and highlighting of a particular European approach to international crisis management and to issues of global security more generally, the differentiation of NATO has been promoted and implemented.
A focus on the production of meaning as a process through which conventions become intelligible to participants through observable usages and effects suggests that meanings are open to various and changing interpretations, while also sometimes appearing to be overly coherent, fixed or inevitable” (Wedeen, 2002: 722).
Since CSDP formal framework is consensus-based and intergovernmentalist, so rather an unfavourable context for having a non-state centred dynamic taking place, such an approach is also relevant for the case of the European strategic culture. Based on methodology, an actor-oriented approach is centred on the way in which people attempt to make apparent, observable sense of their worlds in emotional and cognitive terms (Wedeen, 2002: 721).
In the continuous references to the 2003 ESS as a key to Europe’s relevance in dealing with international security challenges, one example can be found of such meanings. So many contradictions have been featured in NATO’s elaboration with view of a new strategic concept as to suggest that in this North Atlantic setting has become more elusive than in the European. The focus is then shifted to actor’s practices, with the inclusion of the discursive elements of them, rather than to see them as bounded by cultural references.
If the link between territory and culture is blurred, then this becomes especially important as in the case of the North Atlantic security culture or the European security culture. A Bourdieusian framework seems a check against the overstatement of predispositions both individual and collective related to culture in works inspired by Geertz, among others (Jackson, 2008).
Where culture is concerned, the Bourdieu inspired turn to practice has pointed the contradictory reign, politically charged, changeable and fragmented character of meanings. Unlike Geertz reception, input from Bourdieu is handled in a more consistent and aware way by most scholars who draw on him (Merand and Pouliot, 2008).
The idea of cultural references not providing what is referred to as ultimate ends or values towards action but rather a “tool kit”. “This toolkit may be used in varying configurations to solve different kinds of problems” and “components that are used to construct strategies of action” is one of the ways that the Bourdieu inspired turn to practice in the study of culture has taken in the Sociology field. A focus on the practical dynamic of repertoires of meanings is suggested. One example is the range of tools for national security have been enlarged- by the emergence of a European strategic culture- while at the same time pushing them to confront within the EU framework their cultural references (Wæver, 1998).
The idea of sustaining already existing frameworks which are enhanced by the institutional framework of CSDP being inter-governmentalist would be supported by national actors drawing on the emergence of a European strategic culture. In this instance, co-constitution as suggested by Geertz’ idea of culture as a “model of and for” experience would lead it and “structural circumstance” to “reinforce each other”.
The definition of an ideology as an explicit, articulated, highly organized meaning system establishing new styles or strategies of action in an unsettled situation is met by the insistence that there is a European way to deal with international security issues.
This aspect is present in the claim that the EU’s civil-military approach in CSDP has initially been something unique to it to which other multilateral organisations that are involved in intervening in international crisis management have progressively come around with a notable example being NATO through its references to a “comprehensive approach”.
Conclusion
Defining the alliance from European framework is in this context an outstanding example of the contested and politically charged characteristics of such a reference. The EU’s assertiveness in terms of strategic guidance provided by the ESS is pitched against the difficulties NATO experiences in an effort to follow up in its practices on its mentions of a comprehensive approach as a priority (Giegerich, 2006).
The idea that the alliance actually would be a senior partner in relation to CSDP as the European intervention in international crisis management because of its overwhelmingly bigger military capabilities and its experience of high-level intensity use of armed forces is challenged by putting the focus on orientations rather than means.
Turning to the perspective of North Atlantic security community, consideration has to be taken that such communities of practice are “sustained by a repertoire of ideational and material communal resources” (Adler, 2005: 17).
The claim for European uniqueness through CSDP and conceptual guidance like the ESS is very much the issue (Howorth, 2009). Looking at it materially, these elements are not detached from the North Atlantic framework; after all, the concerned participants are made to draw on one set of capabilities because of the overlap in membership between NATO and EU also military speaking they rely on the experience of the alliance and higher risk-taking for specific operations of international crisis management.
According to a European approach, the shift in the North Atlantic security community as a result of the EU’s growing assertiveness is not caused by an all-out opposition. Rather, it reflects that practices in this domain have led to the disruption of several representations that represented a settled situation. The idea of a clear-cut division of labour between NATO and the institutions emerging through the process of European integration is one such representation.
By unsettling the division of labour or the centrality of NATO for political-diplomatic interaction between the EU and its member states and the North American participants, CSDP’s emergence has triggered shifts in the practice of the North Atlantic security. As a result, while not challenging the community itself, the shift in European practice accompanying the development of CSDP has led to important changes in it.
Bibliography
Adler, Emanuel (1997), “Imagined (security) communities: cognitive regions in International relations”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 26(2), 249-277.
Adler, Emanuel (2005), “Communities of practice in international relations”, in Emanuel Adler, Communitarian international relations: the epistemic foundations of international relations, New York: Rutledge, 3-28.
Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael (1998), “A framework for the study of security Communities”, in Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds.), Security communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29-64.
Berenskoetter, Felix Sebastian (2005), “Mapping the mind gap: a comparison of US And European security strategies”, Security Dialogue 36(1), 71-92.
Geertz, Clifford (1973a), “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, In Clifford Geertz, The interpretation of cultures, New York: Free Press, 3-30.
Giegerich, Bastian (2006), European security and strategic culture: national Responses to the EU’s security and defence policy, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Goede, Marieke de (2008), “The politics of pre-emption and the war on terror in Europe”, European Journal of International Relations 14(1), 161-185.
Hofmann, Stephanie C. (2009), “Overlapping institutions in the realm of international Security: the case of NATO and ESDP”, Perspectives on Politics 7(1), 45-52.
Howorth, Jolyon (2009), “NATO and ESDP: institutional complexities and political Realities”, Politique étrangère – English edition, 4:2009, 95-106.
Grevi, Giovanni (2009), “ESDP institutions”, in Giovanni Grevi, Daniel Keohane and
Damien Helly (eds.), European Security and Defence Policy: the first ten years (1999-2009), Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies, 19-67.
Jackson, Peter (2008), “Pierre Bourdieu, the ‘cultural turn’ and the practice of International history”, Review of International Studies 34(1), 155-181.
Johnston, Alistair Iain (1995), “Thinking about strategic culture”, International Security 19(4), 32-64.
Kagan, Robert (2002), “Power and weakness”, Policy Review 113, 3-28.
Longhurst, Kerry (2004), Germany and the use of force: the evolution of German Security policy 1989-2003, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Menon, Anand (2003), “Why ESDP is misguided and dangerous for the Alliance”, in John S. Keeler and Jolyon Howorth (eds.), Defending Europe: the EU, NATO and the quest for European autonomy, New York: Palgrave, 203-217.
Mérand, Frédéric and Pouliot, Vincent (2008), “Le monde de Pierre Bourdieu: éléments pour une théorie sociale des relations internationales”, Canadian Journal of Political Science-Revue canadienne de science politique 41(3), 603-625.
Meyer, Christoph O. (2006), The quest for a European strategic culture: changing norms on security and defence in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ortner, Sherry B. (1997), “Introduction”, Representations 59, 1-13.
Pouliot, Vincent and Lachmann, Niels (2004), “Les communautés de sécurité, vecteurs d’ordre régional et international”, La revue internationale et stratégique 54, 131-140.
Ramel, Frédéric (2003), “La sécurité humaine: une valeur de rupture dans les cultures stratégiques au Nord?”, Études internationales 34(1), 79-104.
Roussel, Stéphane and Morin, David (2007), “Les multiples incarnations de la culture stratégique et les débats qu’elles suscitent”, in Stéphane Roussel (ed.), Culture stratégique et politique de défense: l’expérience canadienne, Outremont: Athéna, 17-42.
Varwick, Johannes and Koops, Joachim A. (2009), “The European Union and NATO: ‘shrewd interorganizationalism’ in the making?”, in Knud Erik Jørgensen (ed.), The European Union and International Organizations, London: Rutledge, 101-130.
Wæver, Ole (1998), “Security, insecurity and a security in the West European non-war community”, in Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (eds.), Security communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-118.
Wedeen, Lisa (2002), “Conceptualizing culture: possibilities for political science”, American Political Science Review 96(4), 713-728.
Weldes, Jutta, Laffey, Mark, Gusterson, Hugh and Duvall, Raymond (1999), “Introduction: constructing insecurity”, in Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson and Raymond Duvall (eds.), Cultures of insecurity: states, communities and the production of danger, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1-33.
NATO refers to the North Atlantic treaty organization. This is military unity or alliance of the democratic states in Europe and the North America. Its headquarters is in Brussels, Belgium in Eastern Europe. It was started by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on the 4th April in 1949. It constitutes a system of collective defense responsibility whereby each member state agrees to mutual defense in response to attacks by any external forces. NATO comprises of twenty six members states.
Discussion
The NATO’s role come responsibility include: as the core, the provision of collective defense or security to its member states through traditional military ways. It has the duty of promoting the development of democracy and stability throughout the region that is through the engagement with the nations of the former Warsaw pact. NATO has also engaged is the use of force to reclaim peace in the war torn states, ensures good governance by ensuring the governments of the members states as well the neighboring states by which there is both political and socio-economical interest. NATO has played a significant role in the Balkans, used military force in Kosovo in the year 1999. NATO still has its mission in the Balkans, Ukraine, the Caucasus and the former Soviet states in the central Asia.
Europe as continent comprises of several countries most of them being developed. The western part of Europe is characterized with highly developed nations with the Eastern part characterized with nations that are not that much developed. In terms of development the western countries are in the core of the development regions while most of the eastern countries are in the external periphery. The countries are independent with defined boundaries. The countries are politically stable with quit a number of them having mature democracies. Apart from NATO there are some other affiliations which include political that are for example the European Union, as well as business and social that includes sports association like the UEFA.
The countries identify themselves with different ideologies. Some embrace communism which originated from the USSR, and they were part of the union especially countries in the Eastern Europe. While some embrace capitalism especially those from Western Europe. The rest are seen to embrace both the characteristics. With the existence of the dynamic world the changes that occur have been seen to be accommodated comfortably by the European countries. There is asocial change or adjustment in general caused by either the revolutions that have occurred or the generational changes. Europe in terms of wealth is characterized by various activities that range from the advancement of science and technology, oil production especially in the Eastern Europe, mining, and agricultural activities.
This wealth is evenly distributed, for there are well structured mechanisms to enhance equality within these countries. The governments are democratic, for the people and at greater levels supported and watched by the people. The citizens from all the races are occupants of Europe including immigrants from other continents. Universal human rights are highly respected. The governance structures are development oriented and cherish peace, democracy and stability.
Emergence of the security teams
With activities like slave trade that involved the exchange of human being especially from Africa and Asia to work with some of the items that only existed in Europe. Some of it was forced labor. Colonization, wars like the First World War that occurred in early twentieth century and the Second World War that occurred in the mid twentieth century. Europe has experienced a major historical transformation. Class struggles that were defeated by revolutions, for instance the French revolution. The rise and fall of dictators in some of the countries, like Adolf Hitler of Germany. All these experiences in the history of Europe lead to the need to formation of organizations that would bring unity and the pooling of resources for instance the military to defeat any present and future bad occurrences and promote to higher standards the positive aspect of these experiences. In order to counter the political and economical unhealthy competition their was the formation of the European Union while the issue of security and stability there is the formation of NATO.
Various efforts have been put in place to allow the spread the influence the effect of NATO. The expansion has been done especially towards the Eastern Europe, with its importance majorly attached future security threats and prospects and insurance policy against uncertainties rather than a defense against surprise attacks that don’t show any possibilities of coming anywhere soon. It is not an issue cold war which the western countries have not shown any interest of engaging in over the last forty years, but it is the internal and regional political instability that can erupt at any time. The crisis and instabilities in countries like Albania, Chechnya and the Yugoslavia are the examples.
This expansion is the inclusion of the countries in the larger Europe and parts of Northern America. This expansion can be viewed as to have both the positive and negative implications. There are significant benefits accrued as well as threats that can be brought by the unified force. The major benefit of this expansion can be taken to be maintenance of calmness and stability. Both the external stability and the stability in Europe as a continent are of greatest concern, and positive impact or effect or the world’s stability in a greater sense. This is possible basing on the resources and the ideologies within the larger organizations. Second, there is the maintenance of the internal stability and democracies within the member states and their immediate neighbors. This has a direct on the security within these nations.
NATO can reinforce and consolidate liberal political and economic institutions in the upcoming young states of Eastern Europe, which can improve safety of the Western European countries. The expansion can ensure the simultaneous existence of stability locally and regionally. NATO has the prospects that its achievements in the Western Europe for the last forty years, is likely to occur in the Eastern Europe which are still governed by communist’s ideologies
In the urge and the process of expansion, their have been several problems, barrier and challenges that the organization has really encountered. For instance it was primarily argued that some of the main threats to the NATO members have since disappeared. Countries like Russia or those of the CIS that initially posed military danger or opposition to the internal politics of the Central and the Eastern Europe no longer represent the same danger.
Due to unequal wealth or finances, some countries tend to fear the financial implications. Their leaders tend to feel and argue that the burdens of being members i.e. membership responsibilities, are too high to be comfortably supported by their budgets and there are not always more than willing to join this organization. The deployment of this foreign troops in the soil of this candidate states is an area of concern since most countries wouldn’t like that direct or close contact of the foreign troops that they are not in fool control, with their citizens. This is some of the unlikely behaviors of the military that can be existence can affect the social lives of the citizens. Since NATO has been able to work and assist effectively in various situations and cases of emergency there is a general feeling that their no need to add more members in the organization. This is drawn from the western officials.
Some of the superior countries in the NATO region that are non members experience its effects as well as influence. Russia as an example had been forced to adjust on some of the political and economical policies in order to fit to the new world situations. These changes include the corporations both in business and military fields, the enhancement of the unity in diversity in terms of political ideologies and the global peace which is of the greatest concern. Initially, before the changes were effected, there was a view by the western countries and the US of instability and lack of understanding and consensus within Russia. Russia was also forced to develop international relationships with the west and Europe at large to bring to a realization a mutual benefit between these countries.
In general terms apart from the benefits accrued by the member states of NATO, the whole world feels the impact of the roles of NATO. Solving some of the disputes that would bring, negative impact to the world economy, like the matters of oil prices. There is the issue of refugees from these internal conflicts that would inconveniences in their host nations in terms. It can also be used to mobilize resources that can be used in matter that are not military oriented or related that is the issues like HIV and AIDS, global warming and reaction measures to natural calamities.
However, it is argued mostly by Russia that the formation of NATO allowed the bringing of nuclear energy more so in terms of nuclear weapons to the Eastern Europe. The member states were equipped with nuclear weapons as well as funding to improve on military technology. In case of irresponsible handling of this nuclear weapon it poses a great danger to region as well as the existence of humanity. This requires responsibility as well as good will in the respect and observation of the international human rights and the recognition of the responsibility of the United Nations.
Conclusion
The strengthening of the military ties, joining military powers on one side is good for the enhancement of peace and stability. It however, on the other had receiving criticisms by leaders especially the religious leaders for they believe that it encourage the invention of weapons of mass destruction that can not be trusted in the hands of the human beings. They believe that in order to have peace we do not require all those weapons and they should be completely destroyed. In situations where there are no weapons there is nothing to massively destroy the world.
The expansion of these ideals also increases the dominance of certain powers and their hidden negative agenda poses a threat to global security. In my view the organizations should only aspire to expand to levels at which they attain resources that would only allow them to comfortably achieve their goals and objectives. Different nations, with different ideologies and agendas, with intensions of coming together are sometimes tricky and therefore require compromise of certain interests. Leadership of these organizations should be democratic and uphold the standards and interests of the organization at heart.
Bibliography
Beccaria, Cesare in Richard Davies, translator: On Crimes and Punishments, and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press 1764. p.120.
Deflem, Mathieu.Sociological conjecture and Criminological study: Views from Europe and the United States. Elsevier 2006. p.23.
Department of Justice information data found on 2008.
Dobbs, Michael, “Eastern European Countries Lobby for Seat at the NATO Table”, TheWashington Post, Tuesday, 1996.
NATO was developed from the 1948 North Atlantic Treaty, which stipulated that member states should defend one another if they were attacked (Collins 1).
NATO is a military cooperation of “Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Collins 1)”.
The vast NATO membership has grown since the formation of the organization in 1949. The latest entrants into the military union joined in 2009 (Collins 1). NATO’s headquarters is in Brussels and its roles in international politics have been prominent since its formation. Due to NATO’s dominance in international politics, this paper seeks to analyze its formation and the roles it has played in international politics.
Formation
NATO’s formation can be traced to the era of communism where Western states tried to stop possible attacks from Russia (Collins 1). Notably, the US was a pioneer in this strategy because it sought to defend itself from attacks by Russia. However, the 1948 treaty of Brussels, which saw the participation of France, United Kingdom, Belgium and Netherlands, is considered to lay the groundwork for the formation of NATO (Collins 1).
This treaty saw the formation of the Western European Defense Organization, which was designed to protect western European powers from any attacks by its aggressors. At the time, US had no role to play in the union. However, after the formation of the Western European Defense Organization, the US was invited to the union to balance Russia’s power (Collins 2). Soon after this development, NATO was birthed.
The NATO treaty outlined that any attack on any member state would amount to an attack on all member states (Collins 1). Therefore, retaliation attacks were to be undertaken by all member states. At the time of the first formation, NATO was only comprised of “United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland” (Collins 1). The protection of member states included the use of military power.
Nonetheless, the use of military power is not always the first course of action to be pursued by member states. The resolve to use military power only surfaces if there is a need to do so. Military power therefore only stands as an option.
NATO’s mandate is only limited to states which are above the tropic of cancer. Therefore, any conflicts that occur out of this zone are avoided. Comprehensively, the formation of NATO saw the standardization of military procedures, such that, the US adopted most European military practices and European member states adopted some US military practices. So far, NATO has remained a force to reckon with in world politics.
NATO Roles
Afghanistan Interventions
NATO’s role in international politics has especially been brought to fore by the war on terror. For instance, the September 11 attacks marked the first time NATO invoked article five of its charter, which requires member states to protect one another if an attack occurs. This article had never been invoked before (Collins 17).
The September 11 attacks marked NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan where it intervened to root out Taliban and Al Qaeda elements. The Afghanistan intervention saw the birth of operation eagle assist, operation active endeavor and several minor military operations on the Mediterranean Sea (which were designed to prevent the movement of terrorists and their weapons) (Collins 28).
In 2003, NATO took control of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan to have more control of the country and to stop the spread of Taliban and Al Qaeda activities. Alongside these interventions, NATO was instrumental in training the Afghanistan military and police to help root out the Taliban and stop their terrorist activities.
Iraq Mission
NATO was instrumental in training Iraqi forces after Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled. The NATO Training Mission in Iraq has overseen this activity. This action was also initiated upon the request of the Iraqi interim government and it was guaranteed by the UN security resolution (1546) (Collins 56).
The mandate of NATO in Iraq (under the training mission) was to improve the structures and institutions of Iraq’s military to help them become an effective military and police force to provide stability to the Middle Eastern nation. The mandate of NATO also stretched to provide mentorship to the Iraqi forces.
Libyan Mission
NATO was excessively instrumental in the recent operations on Libya to topple Gadhafi’s regime. In fact, the Libyan mission is among the most dramatic roles that NATO has played in the Middle East. During the Arab uprising, there were extreme confrontations between protestors and the Libyan government after similar protests toppled Tunisia and Egyptian presidents.
Due to extreme human right violations (like the killing of protestors and the use of excessive force on protestors), the UN approved the use of military force to implement a cease-fire resolution backed by the 1973 UN resolution (Belkin 17). A no-fly zone was later imposed on Libya by NATO-allied forces.
Afterwards, an arms embargo was enforced on Libya and through the naval ships that surrounded Libya’s coast; Gadhafi’s government was unable to ship weapons into Libya. The Libyan mission was also aimed at stopping the importation of mercenaries into Libya (Belkin 17). However, during this mission, NATO also received support from Qatar and the UAE.
Nonetheless, the Libyan mission witnessed the first cracks of the NATO alliance because only eight of the 28 member states took part in active military combats (Belkin 17). It was reported that some NATO states saw the Libyan mission as overstepping NATO’s mandate (Belkin 17).
There were also accusations that the Libyan mission would begin to mark the demise of NATO after some member states were discontented by the actions taken by some of its partners in the Libyan mission.
Within the NATO alliance, France and the UK were dominant players in the entire operations, but it is reported that the operation would not have been successful without the input of the US (Belkin 17). The Libyan mission saw the capture and killing of the long-term Libyan ruler, Muhammad Gadhafi.
Conclusion
NATO’s formation has brought together several western military alliances to create a powerful military force in the world. So far, NATO has been instrumental in major military exercises in the Middle East and its mandate has extended to training, mentorship and pursuing aggressive military attacks.
The interests of member states are firmly within the operations of NATO, and based on recent world events, the growth of the alliance is expected to influence major military decisions in the world. The Libyan, Iraqi and Afghanistan interventions are just a few examples of the influence of NATO in world politics.
Works Cited
Belkin, Paul. France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy and Issues in U.S.-French Relations. London: DIANE Publishing, 2011. Print.
Collins, Brian. NATO: A Guide to the Issues. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.