Globalization and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Article Example

Globalization Globalization is an international phenomenon with far-reaching consequences in the social, political and economic realms. Economic globalization, namely the spread of neoliberalism and capitalist-inspired consumerism as the dominant engine of economic growth, has both supporters and detractors. The world is becoming more and more interdependent and whether one thinks that globalization is a good or bad thing, it is here to stay. Robert A. Pastor has offered globalization as an important post-Cold War map and this has been arguably the most important phenomenon to affect the United Kingdom over the past quarter century. Globalization, as it exists today, rests largely on the shoulders of neoliberal economics and the global entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic system in the world. Neo-liberalism, the belief in laissez-faire economics, was best articulated by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s. US President Ronald Regan famously remarked “government was not the solution but the problem” (Hobsbawm, 1994). Neo-liberals put all of their faith in the distributive capabilities of the invisible hand of the free market, and believe that business was inherently good and that government bad. The government was longer interested in the provision of welfare but existed to stimulate the capitalist economic market. Accordingly, The essence of neo-liberalism, its pure form, is a more or less thoroughgoing adherence, in rhetoric if not in practice, to the virtues of a market economy, and, by extension, a market-oriented society. While some neo-liberals appear to assume that one can construct any kind of ‘society’ on any kind of economy, the position taken here is that the economy, the state and civil society are, in fact, inextricably interrelated (Coburn, 2000). Globalization has had dramatic economic, social and political ramifications in the post Cold War world and provides the most accurate perspective of the international environment for the United Kingdom today. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Expansion has been a feature of NATO’s experience since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe. While the NATO expansion decisions in 2008 affects all member states, some are more adversely affected than others. The implications of a larger NATO on the member states are varied and are particularly important for the eastern countries of the transatlantic alliance who share borders with the Balkan region and the new countries pegged for membership. NATO nations most impacted by the enlargement of NATO include Greece, which has effectively blocked the ascension of Macedonia due to a dispute regarding its name and the eastern countries of Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria (countries which joined NATO in 2004) will be significantly impacted by the expansion of 2008-2009 (NATO’s, 2008). With respect to foreign policy and regional security in a post-Cold War world, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria stand to gain significantly from the easterly expansion of the Balkan states of Croatia and Albania, two thirds of the “Adriatic Trio”. Slovenia is a former constituent state of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and shares a common history and common purpose with its brethren in Croatia, also formerly of the Yugoslav state. Both Slovenia and Croatia have attempted to rid themselves of the yoke of Serbian influence in the post-Tito years and have, to varying degrees, undertaken a pro-Western shift in their foreign policy and have simultaneously shifted their foreign policies away from the influence of Belgrade and Moscow. The subsequent independence of the former Serbian territory of Kosovo, and western support for its unilateral declaration of independence in 2008, have further signaled an important shift in power away from the traditional regional spheres of influence in Belgrade and Moscow (Alvarez, 2006; Stankevicius 1996). Looking at the concerns and end-goals of Romania and Bulgaria, two recent inductees to both NATO and the European Union, the introduction of new NATO members from the east signals a wholesale break with tradition and the reorientation of much of the region’s foreign policy goals away from the traditional sphere of influence, i.e. Moscow, and the decidedly pro-Western shift in regional as well as international policy. The enlargement of NATO also represents an internal shift within the organization itself and although it is unlikely that the traditional spheres of power within NATO will no longer be Western (i.e. the UK, United States and the large countries of Western Europe), the inclusion of more and more countries of the Eastern block bodes well for the current members who share regional concerns with their neighbors. All and all, the country set to loose the most from NATO’s eastern expansion is Russia which has witnessed its influence progressively wane since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the abrogation of the Warsaw Pact and is now watching the eastern European region shifts its attention away from Moscow and towards the rest. The expansions of both NATO and the European Union do not bode well for a Russian state which has traditionally exerted a preponderance of influence in the region under analysis (NATO’s, 2008). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization ii The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance which was established by the North Atlantic Treaty following World War II in 1949. Headquartered in Brussels, the Atlantic Alliance represents collective defence integration on both sides of the Atlantic. NATO was initially composed of 10 founding members in the wake of the Soviet-induced Berlin Blockade, including countries of Europe (Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Iceland) and two countries from North America (Canada and the United States). Of incredible magnitude, the combined defence spending of the countries of NATO is estimated at 70% of total global defence spending. Countries which are presently being pegged for membership despite certain controversies include Croatia, Macedonia and Albania, - the “Adriatic Trio” – as well as Georgia and the Ukraine. The controversies associated with their memberships will be in explored below (Fierke, 1999). NATO was established after the Second World War in response to fears of encroachment by the increasingly powerful USSR. Between 1948 and 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created and included the participation of 10 European countries as well Canada and the United States, representing North America. While the initial impetus for the growth of this organization was the Soviet Berlin Blockade in 1948, a North Atlantic Treaty was signed by the original member states in Washington, DC on April 4th 1949, thus committing its members to collective defence. Accordingly, What catalyzed NATO was a strong desire to link Europe and North America in response to the Soviet threat. NATO mollified European concerns about a potential German threat; contributed to a greater sense of Western European unity and security; provided a mechanism for the United States to participate in European economic and military recovery (McCalla 1996). As a collective defence organization, NATO grew and evolved to ensure the geopolitical stability and physical security of its member states. Growing in tandem with changes to the international system including the Korean War, the Cuban missile crisis, bipolarity and an arms race on the extreme poles of the Cold War, NATO has evolved tremendously over the past sixty-odd years. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 effectively removed NATO’s adversary from the equation and put the future existence of this organization into doubt. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 signaled the end of the Cold War and the defeat of the communist command system at the hands of capitalist-inspired liberal democracy. While applauded from all four corners of the globe, the end of the Soviet Union and the threat of nuclear war posed quite a dilemma to members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In fact, NATO went through an existential crisis and faced the prospect to becoming obsolete. Despite this, NATO has shown its resilience and remains a potent force almost 19 years after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. It should go without saying that the collapse of communism had potentially far more disrupting effects to the organizational structure and very raison d’être of NATO. It is for this reason that we must first turn to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in our analysis of the collapse of communism from 1989 to 1991. While enthusiastically welcomed by every single member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1989, the fall of the Soviet Union posed a severe threat to the very core of NATO. Is it fair to say that the threat was existential? Absolutely. NATO was created in response to the military threat emanating from East Europe and the Soviet Union. As a collective defence organization, NATO evolved in response to threats and challenges from the East and with the fall of communism, it lost its very raison d’être. The challenges posed by the collapse of state-led communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR were existential indeed. While NATO was initially established to link Europe and North America in an alliance in response to the Soviet threat, Throughout the next forty years as NATO’s membership, organizational structure, and list of responsibilities grew, two essential facts remained constant: NATO focused on the Soviet threat, and it performed both military and nonmilitary functions for its members. Though the degree of threat varied over that time, the threat was always present (McCalla, 1996). The Warsaw Pact was a defence organization of communist states signed in Warsaw, Poland in 1945. Established in response to the introduction of West Germany into NATO, the Warsaw Pact sought to provide collective defence and coordinated military support to the countries of the Soviet block (including Eastern and Central Europe. Although differing in terms of organization and command structure, in term of content the Warsaw Pact could be seen as the Soviet-inspired equivalent of NATO. Following the collapse of state-led communism in Eastern and central Europe, the Warsaw Pact was officially abrogated in 1991. NATO, sure of its place and continued utility following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of state-led communism in Europe and the abrogation of the Warsaw Pact, successfully integrated former Warsaw Pact members into its collective defence and military alliance. In fact, on March 12 1999 Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO as full members. There is more than a little irony in the fact all three countries - Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic (albeit as the former state of Czechoslovakia) – were founding members of the Warsaw Pact back in 1945 and of course, this Pact was named for the city in which it was signed, in Poland. Five years later, in March of 2004 former Warsaw Pact members Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia were admitted into the NATO community, bringing the total former Warsaw Pact membership of NATO to nine. In addition to absorbing the former membership of its nemesis, NATO has proven its utility in a post-Cold War world through further integration and new challenges (Alvarez, 2006). NATO is currently composed of 26 countries and the combined defence spending of the countries which make up NATO today is estimated to be upwards of 70% of total global spending on defence. NATO enlargement, in the face of the defeat of its primary adversary embodied in the Soviet Union, the Eastern Block and the Warsaw Pact, has been eastward with a strong strategic shift towards integrating its former nemeses into the Atlantic Alliance. Following the official abrogation of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO has played a decisive role in ending conflict in the Balkans, proving that it can be a force to be reckoned with outside of the territory of its members. Furthermore, NATO airplanes patrolled North American airspace the afternoon of September 11, 2001 proving that the Alliance can serve and protect on both sides of the Atlantic. Establishing a new diplomatic foothold and ensuring a place for itself in the post-Cold War world, NATO successfully integrated former Warsaw Pact members into its collective defence and military alliance. In 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were admitted into NATO as full members and five years later, by 2005, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia were admitted into the NATO community, bringing its total former Warsaw Pact members to nine. Thus, while integrating its former archrivals into the Alliance and successfully evolving as a transnational collective defence body, NATO has again proven its utility in a post-Cold War. Importantly as well, both the expansions of NATO and the EU have largely been eastward, embracing former members of the Soviet block (Fierke, 1999). Recent controversies, particularly at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 demonstrated the divergent opinions within NATO with respect to Eastern European enlargement. The admittance of Balkan states of Croatia, Macedonia and Albania, - the “Adriatic Trio” - were put into question with the threat of a Greek veto following the inclusion of Macedonia, a country which shares its name with the Greek province of Macedonia, birthplace of Alexander the Great. Attempting to ensure Balkan stability in the wake of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, the hopes of expanding NATO membership to the “Adriatic Trio” were almost dashed with Greek veto threat. Further controversies at the Summit in 2008 included the introduction of Georgia and Ukraine, two countries under historically within a Russian sphere of influence and there was the belief that membership would harm the transnational alliance’s relations with Russia. These issues, which deal directly with eastern expansion, have put theses countries ascension attempts into jeopardy. Different worldviews, particularly relevant in the wake of the new geopolitical configuration after the collapse of the Soviet Union can best account for issues raised in Brussels (NATO’s, 2008). References Almond, G.A, Dalton, R.J & Powel Jr., G.B. (2002). European Politics Today, 2nd edition. New York: Longman. Alvarez, J.E. (2006). International Organizations: Then and Now. The American Journal of International Law. 100(2): 324-347. Bereuter, D. (2004) NATO and the EU Security Strategy. Oxford Journal on Good Governance, 1(1):21-27. Brown, M. E. (1995). The Flawed Logic of NATO Expansion. Survival, 37(1): 34-52. Coburn, D. (2000). Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism, Social Science & Medicine, 51(1): 135-146. Hobsbawm, Eric. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus. NATOs Eastern Expansion Plans Hit Roadblock. Deutsh Welle. Retrieved July 11 2009 from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3174763,00.html McCalla, R. (1996). NATOs Persistence after the Cold War. International Organization. 50(3): 445-475. NATO enlargement. NATO Homepage. Retrieved July 11 2009 from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm Stankevicius, C. (1996). NATO enlargement and the indivisibility of security in Europe: a view from Lithuania’, NATO Review 44(5): 21–5. Warleigh, A. (2004). European Union: The Basics. New York: Routledge. Wood, S. and Quaisser, W. (2008). The New European Union: Confronting the Challenges of Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publisher. Read More