10. THE NATO DURING & AFTER THE COLD WAR

1. Why NATO?2. The purpose of NATO3. NATO: An historical overview4. NATO after the Cold War5. Debate: ‘The NATO is living on borrowed time’6. Conclusions

MILITARY ALLIANCES - ONLYEVER TEMPORARY?

‘More than 85 per cent of all the alliancesin history collapse within two years after

a war. It is really a miracle that the NATOstill exists, especially as there are

quite different interests: America hasglobal interests, Europe has clear

regional interests’

Andrei Markovits, US politicalscientist, interview in: Der

Spiegel, no. 25, 21 June 1999, p. 38

1. WHY NATO?

• It is only the international institution that links (exclusively) North America & Western (& now Central) Europe - without it, relations between the two sides of the Atlantic would probably deteriorate & the influence of the West on world affairs weaken

• It seems to be the only military organization capable of effective intervention in European security crises - without it, these are more likely to become uncontrollable

• Without it, there could be a problematic ‘renationalization’ of European defence policies

THE STRONGER THE FEAR FOR THE NATO, THE STRONGER THE EUROPEAN ‘IMPULSE’?

‘You don’t know who’s going to be the US presidentin 1993 and 1997, & he could be inclined to disengage

[from Europe]. They [the Americans] are more & moreinterested in the Pacific & no longer know Europe. Wehave to start with the two of us, France & Germany. I’m very sceptical as to what we can do as 12 or even

six. Under no circumstances do I want a debateemerging in Germany as to whether we

should have nuclear weapons’

Chancellor Helmut Kohl, to FrancoisMitterrand, October 1984, as quoted in:

Jacques Attali, Verbatim I 1981-1986, p. 714

2. THE PURPOSE OF THE NATO

‘NATO is about three things: to keep theAmericans in, the Soviets out and the

Germans down’

Lord Ismay, first secretary-general of the NATO

3. THE NATO: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

• Founded 1949 with 12 members: US, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Benelux states, UK, France, Portugal, Italy (USSR at this time has six times as many army divisions as Western Europe!)

• Expanded to include Greece & Turkey (1952), West Germany (1955, after collapse of EDC project) & Spain (1982)

• France leaves NATO military command (& NATO hq leaves Fontainebleau!) 1966, but remains member of political alliance & pledges support for NATO in any East-West crisis

3. NATO: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW (Contd.)

• NATO has no armed forces itself - they must all be supplied by the member states

• Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty obliges a member states, in case that any other(s) should be the object of an armed attack, to ‘take action whatever action it deems necessary, including the use of armed force’ to re-establish & maintain North Atlantic security’

• For 45 years, until the end of the Cold War, it never fired a single shot in warfare!

4. NATO AFTER THE COLD WAR

• European member states reduce defence spending; US troops in Europe reduced from 400,000 to under 100,000

• NATO redefines role, with stronger emphasis on ‘out-of- (NATO) area’ missions

• Creates ‘Partnership for Peace’ establishing military cooperation with neutral & former Warsaw Pact states

• Enlarges to Central Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) 1999, while trying to draw closer to Russia (NATO-Russia Council)

4. NATO AFTER THE COLD WAR (Contd.)

• First military interventions in former Yugoslavia: 1994-95 (Bosnia) & 1999 (Kosovo)

• Yugoslavian crisis has provoked strong tensions within the NATO – the US was very reluctant to intervene, but finally bore the great brunt of the war efforts

• Kosovo War has accelerated movement towards stronger European ‘defence identity’ within NATO – EU decides to build up 60,000-strong ‘rapid reaction force’

• To reduce their dependence on the US, the Europeans would have to spend lots of money!

‘NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT’:US President Bush’s Yugoslavian policy

‘Eagleburger [deputy secretary of state] & I were themost concerned about Yugoslavia. The President and

[James] Baker [secretary of state] were furthest onthe other side. Baker would say “We don’t have

a dog in this fight.” The President would say to meonce a week ‘Tell me again what this is all about”’.

Brent Scowcroft, President Bush’s nationalsecurity advisor, quoted in: Richard

Holbrooke, To End a War (New York:Random House, 1998), p. 27

WHAT NATO MUST DO AFTER THE COLD WAR

NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, 1999

• Keep North America & Europe linked in security• Strengthen European defence identity• Continue its Eastern enlargement (while re-assuring & keeping on good terms with Russia)• Stabilize the Balkans• Counteract future security threats (eg, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction)

NATO must have ‘rapidly deployable capabilitiesto fulful an increasing range of missions’

In: The Economist, 13 March 1999, pp. 23-28.

6. CONCLUSIONS

• NATO still seems important for trans-Atlantic solidarity

• It is an ‘American-led organization’ (M. Parmly, US diplomat, INSEAD, 8 April 1999) & Europe will depend heavily on US ‘fire power’ for a long time

• Unless it intervenes in crises like those in Yugoslavia, it may increasingly be seen to be irrelevant

• Such interventions put great strain on its cohesion, espec given US reluctance to engage

• Long-term trends likely to exacerbate the strains (see article by P. Gordon!)

NATO: THE STAKES OF BOSNIA

‘If Bosnia had not worked, the NATOmight not still exist today’

James Appathurai, speech-writer of theNATO secretary-general, guest lecture

at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, September 1998