Slides in this set
Set up in 1949 due to USA fear that
USSR would spread communism across
·Catalyst to set up was 1948 Berlin ·During Cold War, 300,000
Blockade. troops were stationed across
·Aim: Europe. This number dropped to
·To deter Soviet aggression by uniting 100,000 post Cold War and is
countries of Western Europe expected to drop to 50,000.
·Link USA defence to Europe
·Original Membership 16 countries 1949: ·NATO HQ = Brussels
·USA, CANADA, GREECE, ITALY, ·Military HQ (SHAPE) = Mons
FRANCE, GERMANY, SPAIN, ·Secretary General of NATO = Jaap
PORTUGAL, ICELand, NETHERLandS, NATO
de Hoop Scheffer
BELGIUM, LUXEMBURG, UK, TURKEY, ·NATO highest authority = North
NORWAY, ICELand Atlantic Council; a group of
ambassadors chaired by Secretary
·Member states contribute own
military units which are grouped
under one single NATO command ·Collective Security Article 5 of
structure North Atlantic Treaty: all members
·Highest military leaders: must treat an attack on one
·US general SACEUR = General member as an attack on all the
Bantz J. Craddock collective.
·Clause invoked by USA following
NATO in the Cold War:
·Prime role = defence of western states from
Warsaw pact (equivalent of NATO in eastern
·Common fear of USSR power held the alliance
together. The end of the Cold War:
·French pulled out of military size in 1966 due to ·NATO's position transformed
resentment of US dominance. ·NATO had become the dominant alliance;
·Other strains; reluctance of some countries to follow it was the alliance on the side that `won'
US and impose sanctions on USSR in early 1980s as ·Lost `raison d'etre'
they stood to lose economically. ·Military posture became obsolete.
NATO and the
·NATO in crisis, question mark over existence
·NATO did not disband; it's member states still
valued it as a means to link US and European
·For Eastern European states, the security
guarantee in event of renewed hostility with
Russia was still valuable.…read more
Began to take on new roles
·Idea of a `current bun strategy'; Military action outside member territory in
wanted to be evenly placed and not peacekeeping/enforcing role
just clumped in one area ·Defence of member territory now seemed redundant.
·Wanted to undertake new kinds of operations.
·Some US officials wanted NATO to protect western
interest on a global scale e.g. oil in the Gulf War. This
view was resisted at the time because Europe feared
being dragged into conflict by USA.
·N.B. NATO leading members involved in Gulf War but
Significance of Kosovo for NATO:
not NATO itself.
·Alliance had held together despite
·Milosevic was forced to accept a peace New strategic concept 1999:
settlement ·Only operations in `Euro-Atlantic area' which
·800,000 Albanian refugees were able to effectively meant Eastern Europe.
return home ·Primarily a peacekeeping/enforcing role.
·Critics state: war was fought to prevent human ·NATO needed more flexible forces for a more
catastrophe but `ethnic cleansing' came after war
NATO in modern role.
had begun the 1990's ·1991; Rapid Reaction Corps created; based in
·Some believe that NATO bombing was Germany. Could be deployed at short notice.
ineffective; they bombed more civilians than ·1996; Combined Joint Task Forces, based on
enemies contribution from member states who wanted to
·After the war, NATO failed to prevent a Serbian participate in operations.
majority being driven out of Kosovo
·The Kosovo war exposed tensions within the
alliance that could have suggested it might be
NATO's first and last large-scale war
1999 Washington Summit
First ever military operations: ·Possibility of EU members of
Bosnia: NATO carrying out European-only
First ever military operations: ·Sharp differences over tactics operations but using NATO
Kosovo: between USA and UK and France (especially USA) assets
·First war against a sovereign state by who looked to cause possible crisis in
·Secured withdrawal of Serb forces ·1995: agreement on NATO air
and sent powerful army (KFOR) to strikes which ended the conflict
occupy and permit the returning of ·Bosnia occupied by 60,000 troop
refugees NATO army. They succeeded in
·Both operations demonstrated NATO' keeping the peace
s new found power and effectiveness ·Operating handed over to EU in
in a peace keeping/enforcing role 2004…read more
NATO stabilised Eastern Europe by ·The Partnership For Peace has
expanding the alliance and setting up several purposes:
structure for cooperation with former members ·Forum for discussing security
of the soviet bloc, especially Russia. issues.
·Many Eastern European countries sought ·Helps countries prepare to join
NATO membership for security in the case of NATO.
renewed Russian aggression & to mark new ·Acts as a means of cooperation
orientation to the West. with countries that are unlikely to join soon
·NATO was cautious. such as Russia and the Ukraine.
·Created new institutions which offered a form
of associate membership, the `Partnership
for Peace' in 1994. It was joined by 30
countries including Russia.
·By the late 1990s, NATO could not put
off decisions about enlargement.
NATO-Russia Permanent ·It argued that the West had a moral debt
Joint Council to countries like Poland - it could bring
·Special consultation body stability to potentially unstable area by
·NATO declared it had no locking in democracy. This was opposed
plans to equip new members by Russia.
with foreign troops or nuclear ·In 1997, Russia was forced to accept
weapons . that it could not stop enlargement.…read more
·Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia,
1999: Further enlargement due to:
·Poland, Czech Republic, ·Reflected benefits to applicants; greater
negotiations started at Prague
Hungary security in an unstable region
Summit in 2002
·Most stable and economically ·Step for east to fully integrate with western
advanced of the Eastern institutions
European countries ·Benefits to existing members (particularly
USA); need bases closer to Middle East
Enlargement Romania and Bulgaria allowed US to have
full use of bases in Iraq War
·Lock unstable regions into democracy
Problems with Enlargement:
·Would anger the Russians
·Would add up amount of countries having to be
under NATO's security guarantee if guarantee is
not credible what is the point of NATO? Have there been any negative
·Question of whether or not the American's would see repercussions?
the point in some conflict i.e. protect Britain and ·No - Russia did not do anything over
Poland from Bulgaria etc. entry of the Baltic states.
·Any decision made has to be done so by 26 ·Several new members have proved
countries; it must be unanimous. This is difficult to have useful capabilities e.g.
·A political body formed on a military one - military Balkans provide useful forces and
should remain priority radar facilities.
·Expensive: better aircraft, new infrastructure. The
cost of smallest enlargement in $35bn and is paid for
by existing members…read more
There were fears of NATO making a `historic ·Russia's relationship with NATO changed by
mistake' by moving into Eastern European territory participation in `war on terror'
·Possible storing up of long time bitterness last ·New NATO Russia Council created in 2002
seen in 1919 Treaty of Versailles ·Discussed matters such as arms control, civil
·2004 expansion into Soviet Bloc; the West feared emergencies, missile defence
that this would not be tolerated by Russia ·Aim is to be an improvement on NATO-Russia
BUT Joint Council (PJC) decisions now made
·Russia although not withdrawing objections, jointly but only on agreed topics and Russia has
became more muted under Putin. no veto over NATO policy
Further Obstacles to Enlargement: ·Resentment from Russia towards NATO -
·Main Russian naval base is in the Ukraine. further expansion could be more explosive.
·Domestic problems in Ukraine and Georgia mean each are ·Georgia and Ukraine both have pro-
unlikely to join (see above). western governments and want to join
·Ukraine has strong political divisions. NATO.
·The USA favours expansion but Europeans feel enlargement ·However, Georgia is very weak, its armed
has happened too fast. There is a feeling that NATO is big forces have been worn down, parts of the
enough at the moment. country have broken away and civil war
·Strong, opposing reaction from Russia to US plans to place close down any opposition. It is acting in an
NMD facilities close to Russia borders. undemocratic way, which is not view that is
·Has suspended participation in CFE treaty to show supported by NATO.
displeasure. ·June 2007: Russia warned expansion
·CFE is a cornerstone of post-cold war military situation in would affect current position
Europe; it limits deployments and provides inspections of either ·Feel NATO is slowly encircling them with
side's forces to build confidence. enlargement, Ukraine is considered to be
·NATO has stated to be `disappointed' in the Russian reaction. part of Russia
·Russia has not yet pulled out completely however.…read more