Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the nature of NATO has changed dramatically. There has been much speculation among member states as well as by outside observers as to what exactly NATO's role in Europe in the post-Cold War era should be. After much deliberation, policy makers determined that the goals and mission of NATO have actually changed very little. The ultimate goal of NATO is and always has been to provide for a democratic and war-free Europe. Simply because there is no longer an immediate outside threat to European peace does not mean that this goal has been reached.

The best way to ensure that peace comes to all of Europe is to increase international cooperation and interdependence. It is a generally accepted view that the more codependence that exists between countries, the less likely they are to go to war. In Europe today, NATO is one of several machines at work to bring about deeper international relationships. NATO should work with these other organizations, in particular the European Union and the Western European Union, to achieve this goal to the greatest extent of its ability. Thus, it can be said that if NATO is to continue to endeavor towards its goal of European peace and unity, NATO must continue to grow stronger. As long as Europe is divided and there is conflict on the continent, NATO must expand its power and influence in order to guarantee its goals.

When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949, its primary purpose was to defend Western Europe from Soviet invasion. Immediately following the War, it was a widely held belief that unless drastic action was taken, the Soviets would merely continue their offensive until all of Western Europe had fallen. General George Patton himself desired to continue the United States offensive through Germany and into the Soviet Union without pause in order to prevent the possibility of a Communist Europe. The specter of Communism loomed over Europe, and it seemed that collective defense was the only hope for the survival of Democracy.

As the Cold War escalated, NATO became a symbol of Western unity, resilience, and power. Tensions grew between the United States and the Soviet Union, and several times brinkmanship actually brought these states to the brink of nuclear war. Most confrontations between the two superpowers were through third party nations and military engagements came in the form of proxy wars. Both sides tried to avoid direct military encounters because an encounter of that magnitude would undoubtedly involve nuclear strikes, a possibility neither side wanted to explore. Yet, because neither side would back away from the possibility of nuclear war, alliances - NATO for the West and the Warsaw Treaty Organization for the Eastern Bloc - became the means of preserving the peace through a balance of power. Nuclear weapons provided the backbone of these alliances and instituted to the world its own balance - the balance of terror.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War came to an end, great change came to the victors as well as to the defeated. NATO found itself in a quandary as to what its new mission was to be; with its target adversary out of the picture, a credible argument could be made that organization was obsolete. The Cold War had been won, and, in the ultimate irony, NATO's victory would be its demise. However, the decision was made that simply because there was no longer an immediate threat did not mean that European common defense was obsolete. NATO was able to change its course and redefine its mission of European defense. After a series of conferences on the issue, policy makers determined that the goals and mission of NATO would remain largely unchanged in the post-Cold War era. The Alliance's New Strategic Concept, agreed to in Rome in November 1991, reads,

The most significant difference is that instead of preparing for an attack from an outside foe, it is the belief of the organization that "risks to NATO are more likely to arise from instability, including ethnic rivalry and territorial disputes" (2). Thus, the question of what was to be the new focus of NATO was answered, at least according to the politicians. NATO would now be primarily concerned with the internal security of Europe and the North Atlantic area.

As part of this organizational introversion, NATO has involved itself with relatively minor conflicts in an attempt to keep them from becoming more serious. In November of 1991, the Alliance put forth a new security concept that called for the "active pursuit of dialogue and co-operation" (3) in resolving conflicts. As a result, it has become involved in several peacekeeping activities in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. While the threats being confronted are not necessarily large and dangerous threats to European security, they are contrary to the values extolled by NATO. These missions are what seem to characterize NATO's role in the post-Cold War era, and their nature is reflective of the new nature of NATO. By acting as a sort of Euro-Police, NATO seeks to foster the values of Western democracy. There has been much criticism concerning the fact that the FRY is beyond the Alliance's territory and should therefore be left alone. However, if NATO is to completely fulfill its goal of a war-free Europe, these interventions are a necessity. Furthermore, if NATO is to continue to act in this manner - not only preserving the peace of NATO territory but of Europe as a whole - it is important that NATO continue to grow in power.

The most effective way of increasing NATO's power is to increase membership. Enlargement is not a solution to achieving NATO's goals in and of itself, rather, as the Study on NATO Enlargement states, "NATO's enlargement must be understood as only one important element of a broad European security architecture that transcends and renders obsolete the idea of 'dividing lines' in Europe" (4). If NATO is to reach its goal of a war-free Europe, it must gradually grow to include as much of Europe as possible. The stage has been set for just such a possibility at the Madrid Summit in 1997. At this Summit, NATO officially adopted an "open door policy concerning future accessions" (5), which means that in due time, any nation may make a bid for accession and may join the organization if it meets the requirements. Also at this Summit it was decided to expand NATO for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This expansion brought in three former WTO members, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which will no doubt set the standard for expansion in the post-Cold War era. This expansion certainly did help to erase the "dividing lines" of Europe by crossing the line which was once dubbed the Iron Curtain. More importantly, expansion proved with action and conviction that NATO did not die with the end of the Cold War. Had NATO not chosen to expand when it did, it would have surely begun a descent into political stagnation.

While there is no concrete list of qualifications that must be fulfilled before a country can be admitted into NATO, there are several overlying characteristics which must be exemplified by any NATO hopeful. It must be proven that the country in question is, above all else, interested in maintaining peace and fostering unity in Europe. Of the criteria suggested in NATO's 1995 "Study on NATO Enlargement," the necessity to resolve peacefully all international disputes before being accepted seems to be the predominant theme (6). This helps to ensure that all member countries of the alliance are truly and wholly dedicated to European peace. Also emphasized is the need to recognize the authority of the United Nations and the significance of the UN Charter. Of course, there are also military and financial quotas that need to be fulfilled before a nation can join, but superlative emphasis is on building a stronger and more peaceful Europe.

The nature of NATO is such that it creates an "area in Europe where wars simply do not happen" (7). To dub the Alliance as such may seem lofty and idealistic, but as long as NATO stands by its rigorous membership standards, it can be a reality. While NATO is primarily a military alliance, there are also strong political and philosophical foundations that support it. The members of NATO should, above all, be dedicated to freedom and democratic forms of government. It has been emphasized repeatedly that at the core of NATO's mission is the upholding of "democracy and human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law" (8) in accordance with the UN Charter. It would be foolish and self-destructive for NATO to admit a nation that was not in full concurrence with these ideals as it would undermine the structure and cohesion of the alliance. Currently, every NATO member nation has proven itself to be unquestionably dedicated to democratic ideals and values. The only possible exception may be Turkey, which has had some problems concerning human rights and has also taken extreme criticism for its unwillingness to resolve the conflict in Cyprus. Still, Turkey has, for the majority of this century, displayed a willingness to Westernize despite internal political issues (9).

All member states have also expressed a concern that accepting too many new members too quickly will weaken the alliance. It is expected that in the short run, NATO will be weakened whenever a new member joins, but that after several years of adjustment, a balance will return and the Alliance will be stronger (10). The fear is that if too many states join in too short of a time, NATO's power will be lessened so greatly that full recovery would be impossible. However, this fear will more than likely serve as the impetus for not expanding too quickly. Caution will balance the need to expand and the result will be prudent, if conservative, progress. New nations will be granted membership, but it should be guaranteed that they will uphold the fundamental principles of the Alliance and of the UN. As long as NATO remains dedicated to the ideals of peace and democracy, it is quite possible for NATO territory to remain an area "where wars simply do not happen."

For NATO to be truly successful in fulfilling its mission, it must strengthen ties with other organizations doing the same thing. Ever since the end of World War II, there has been an overwhelming desire in Europe to create closer ties and provide for the common defense. Myriad coalitions and organizations have sprung up to encourage international cooperation on all levels. With the end of the Cold War, it is more likely than ever that these dreams will be realized. NATO's Deputy Secretary General said,

NATO has already formed some ties with certain major European organizations such as the EU and the WEU. However, while these ties are, for the most part, formalities and advisory relationships, they do at least provide some form of communication between groups. These relationships also provide for a certain amount of cohesion and concurrence of values in policy statements. For example, some of Turkey's problems with human rights and in Cyprus were mentioned earlier. Even though it is a member of NATO, these same problems are keeping Turkey out of the EU.

While Turkey's exclusion from the EU while it is a full member of NATO may seem to indicate an inconsistency in the policies of the two organizations, it is actually a useful tool in guiding Turkey towards full adoption of these values. Turkey is a fringe European country in political philosophy as well as geopolitical positioning, and because of this precarious balancing act, it is just as possible for Turkey to begin down the road away from Western democracy as it is to continue towards it. But, if NATO membership is Turkey's proverbial foot in the door to Western style democracy, it is more likely that it will work to gain full entry rights rather than let the door close in its face. Because Turkey is already a member of NATO seeking EU membership, it is possible that it will work harder to rectify their problems rather than put off or even abandon seeking membership.

This is the advantage NATO has in the post-Cold War era. While the Soviet Union was a threat, it was necessary to seek the support of as many nations as possible, even if they were lead by undesirable regimes. It was necessary to destabilize regimes that may have supported the Communist cause and replace them with ones that would seek the aid of the U.S. Turkey's entry into NATO can be said to be of this scenario. Turkey held a strategic position for the U.S. in relation to the Soviet Union and was thus admitted into NATO despite its less than ideal background. (12)

In the post-Cold War era, however, there is no need to coerce nations to ally with the Western democracies for fear of losing them to the enemy. Instead, most nations take on a free-market democracy system and most nations turn to the West for assistance and support because there is no other superpower with whom to ally. If a nation chooses not to seek assistance from the U.S., it is largely on its own. Thus, as victor of the Cold War, the West can determine the terms on which allies will be chosen. Soon, other potential allies will find themselves in positions similar to Turkey's; they will have formed some ties to the West - be it military, economic, political, or merely ideological - and will rather continue with the democratization process, rather than abandon it. For this reason it is beneficial to have several different organizations in which a country can gain some voice and their own foot in the door. In this way, NATO and the EU foster democratic governing styles and cooperation with the UN, which will hopefully be the trend for the future.

Today and in the future, NATO has a significant role to play in cultivating democracy in Europe. By espousing democratic values and international cooperation, NATO is fit to lead democratic Europe into the 21^st century. Democracy has proven itself to the most popular system of government in the world today, and it will continue grow for years to come. Because support for democracies and free-markets is growing so rapidly someone needs to lead the way, and most newly developing nations are turning to the United States and Western Europe for support. Nations that lived under the tyranny of Soviet Communism for years are now struggling with freedom and admission into NATO is the ultimate signal of success. NATO is seen by many to be the bulwark of liberty that brought the Soviet Union crashing down. The extent to which this is true is debatable, but NATO is certainly reaping the benefits of its victory today. Virtually every Eastern European country which has emerged from the former Soviet Bloc has expressed a desire to be included under the umbrella of the Alliance's protection. As long as NATO maintains its open door policy for considering new members, there will always be hope of accession into the Alliance among emerging democracies. As long as popular demand to join NATO exists, it must use this influence to encourage "democracy, human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law" among potential members and maintain these ideals among current members.

The only way for NATO to maintain this popularity is to maintain its power and continue to exhibit signs of openness to new members. This means that NATO must continue to grow - if the Alliance fails to do so, it will stagnate and weaken. Such is the nature of political entities. In the political cycle, an organization can only grow so much and then it begins to collapse. All great empires - that of Alexander, the Roman Empire, even the Soviet Union - have fallen apart when they can no longer progress or fulfill a goal. NATO has a role to play in bringing about peace and unity under democracy in Europe. If it fails to grow in power, it will fail to achieve this end. Therefore, for its own preservation and for the future of Europe, NATO must continue to expand and not become lax in its advocacy of democratic ideals.

1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "The Alliance's New Strategic Concept," November 7-8, 1991, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/c911107a.htm, accessed November 18, 1998.

 

2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "NATO Fact Sheet on the Transformation of NATO's Defense Posture," July 1997, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/trans.html, accessed October 14, 1998.

 

3. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "The Alliance's New Security Concept," November 1991, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/c911107a.htm, accessed November 18, 1998.

 

4. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "Study on NATO Enlargement," September 1995, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/enl-9503.htm, accessed September 29, 1998.

 

5. Javier Solana, "Building a New NATO for a New Europe," July - August 1997, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/9704-1.htm, accessed September 29, 1998.

 

6. Study on NATO Enlargement

 

7. Madeline Albright, found in Department of State publication, "The Enlargement of NATO," February 1996.

 

8. George Robertson, "The Expansion of NATO," The Washington Times, October 21, 1997, internet source available at http://www.britain-info.org/BIStext/FORDOM/defence/211097.htm, accessed November 9, 1998.

 

9. Strobe Talbott, address to the conference, "A Wider Europe: EU Enlargement and U.S. Interests," Washington D.C., March 12, 1998.

 

10. Robertson.

 

11. Deputy Secretary General of NATO, speech at the Extraordinary Session of the WEU Assembly, delivered in London on 22 February, 1996.

 

12. Of course, Turkey has been making steady progress towards full-scale democratization for most of this century, even with the internal religious and social problems with which it must contend - so its accession was not solely utilitarian.

 Sources

"The Alliance's New Strategic Concept." North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 1991. Internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/c911107a.htm. Accessed November 18, 1998.

Deputy Secretary General of NATO. "Speech at the Extraordinary Session of the WEU Assembly." London. February 22, 1996.

"The Enlargement of NATO." United States Department of State. 1996.

"NATO Fact Sheet on the Transformation of NATO's Defense Posture." North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 1997. Internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/facts/trans.html. Accessed October 14, 1998.

Robertson, George. "The Expansion of NATO," The Washington Times, October 21, 1997, internet source available at http://www.britain-info.org/BIStext/FORDOM/defence/211097.htm, accessed November 9, 1998.

Solana, Javier. "Building a New NATO for a New Europe," July - August 1997, internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/9704-1.htm, accessed September 29, 1998.

"Study on NATO Enlargement." North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 1995. Internet source available at http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/enl-9503.htm. Accessed September 29, 1998.

Talbott, Strobe. "A Wider Europe: EU Enlargement and U.S. Interests." Washington D.C. March 12, 1998.

Students' Forum Main | LaSPAM Main | La Salle University