NATOs Irreplaceability - Term Paper Example

Analyze accomplishments NATO has made in recent years to argue for or against the EU substituting NATO in the years to come Introduction Having witnessed aggression at a rate that could not ever be anticipated before, most of Europe was getting intolerant with the level of uncertainty that the future held for the world. As if the just concluded World War II was not enough to fuel enmity and aggression among the world powers, tensions were glowing and burst into the Cold War contributing to more uncertainty. It increasingly became clear that the only deterrent measure was to have a strong indication to cater for the common good of the allies in case the aggressors found cause to launch war against any of the allied members. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed just at the right time to quell the rising future uncertainties of the allies who were still in shock of the aftermath of the World War. NATO is perhaps is perhaps the strongest indication that the allies used to demonstrate common willingness to work together to wipe out future unprecedented warfare just witnessed in the World War II. The life and role of the union of allies in a more military outfit has been under scrutiny with mixed reactions being evident from the stakeholders of the debate of continuity of the allies’ strategic program. The issues that NATO stands for have spilled out and reached every corner of the globe. Transformations in historic times and the apparent evolution of the allies’ common interests need a combined approach such as the one that NATO can enable. In this discourse, NATO’s past achievements have been highlighted in shedding light on a position taken to support its existence rather than replace it with the European Union. It is brought out that the risky situation that the global community lives in today and the need of a common front needed by the allies to tackle the issues cannot assume the role NATO would play in making the risky future a bit promising amid the challenges. Background and Nature of the European Union The European Union (EU or EC) has its history rooted in the 1950s with the establishment of two major organizations; the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (El-Agraa, 2007). The period preceding, during and immediately after the Second World War was one greatly punctuated with tensions among European countries that was propagated by the countries’ stance toward nationalism. The need to create an integration of the countries was a vital part of life if the region was to remain peaceful. The European Coal and Steel Community was specifically established to help in the integration process while mildly playing a role in centrally controlling the national coal and steel industries, previously under the stringent control of state members. The 1950s saw the initial stages in the formation of the European Union with 6 countries confirming their involvement in the organization (El-Agraa, 2007). In 1957, six countries saw the signing of the Treatise of Rome. Over time, the organization grew in size as new states joined the movement. As its size grew with more nations joining the league, so did its power. It was however in 1993 that the organization adopted its current name with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. One other treaty that saw the EU recently tighten its grasp was the Treaty of Lisbon, signed over a decade ago, in 2009. The European Union is governed based on a hybrid system, its operations being directed by a number of supranational institutions that retain their autonomy as well as by member states through negotiations. Some of the most important organs of the European Union include the European Central Bank, Council of the European Union, and the European Commission (El-Agraa, 2007). Other equally important institutions in this category include the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Council. The parliament of the European Union is yet another body that plays an important role in the making of decisions that are upheld and implemented by the EU. The European Union boasts of having established a set of standard laws that apply to its member states and the establishment of a single market. The establishment of the single market by the International body has seen the free movement of capital, goods, services as well as individuals across the borders of member states, this actually being one of its core objectives (Catherine, 2007). The body has also seen the enactment of legislations that regard the maintenance of common trade, agriculture, development and fisheries policies as well as policies that pertain to home affairs. Closely related to the establishment of the single market, the EU has managed to create the eurozone, a union of 17 countries that operate based on common monetary policies (Catherine, 2007). The EC also engages to a small extent in defense activities, diplomatic missions and external relations under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. The body enjoys a presence in the G8, World Trade Organization, G-20 as well as the United Nations (UN) according to El-Agraa (2007). Today, the EU is composed of 25 countries, all retaining their identities and autonomy while granting some of their national powers to the Union as stipulated in various treaty documents. In political and economic circles, the European is seen to have performed well in many respects if the integration of the member states is something to go by (McCormick, 2008). The power that the Union currently wields is massive power, many spectators getting eager to see what will come of the Union as it continues to take measures toward further integration and provision of solutions to some of the world’s problems. However, the Union has also been perceived to have a container of several weaknesses especially with regard to the containment of military conflict as noted by Ian (2009). The ever present military conflict between Israel and Palestine as is the case seen in the Gaza strip is one point of reference ion so far as the European Union’s weakness is concerned. In many cases, all that the Union does is to air its concerns, and issue threats and warnings to the warring parties – warning that are never quite effected. In fact, The Union’s foreign policy chief has in the past admitted the diplomatic failures that the EU has experienced with respect to the Gaza strip conflict (Ian, 2009). In terms of military organization, the European Union has no unified army. The Union has often relied on NATO to provide military and defense services. The Union is known to spend the third largest amount in military research and development after the US and China. Without the help of NATO forces, the European Union could possibly be challenged by China given its military arrangement and expenditure. Background of NATO Controversy at the helm of the transformations in the European political system has spilled into the absence of a common military program, perhaps replacing the criticized NATO’s presence. While a hasty decision could effectively replace the military outfit with one reminiscent of a strong European front, the ramifications could be far reaching than the eye can first see. NATO was created to incorporate a missing link in the European organizations and treaties with a similar agenda of resolving the impasse that was glaring to divide the continent from the aftermath of the war. The inclusion of the United States and Canada incorporated the concept of a transcontinental resolve to streamline the intentions of putting to an end the aggression. Since then, a temporal achievement analysis can be made to highlight the success NATO has witnessed since its inception, firstly the five decade old struggle with the aftermath of the World War II and the new millennium welcoming challenges. The nature of the challenges that the sober side of the World War II faced included the need to bring to an end the escalating tension fueled by the defeated powers regrouping in a stronger offensive and create havoc. According to Tardy (37), two of the most pressing issues at the time of inception of NATO were political stability and security certainty of the allied countries with regard to their territories and interests. European arrangements to deal with the glaring suspicion and tension among the states as fueled by the positions taken at war appeared to be more of an amorphous approach due to lack of a strong element of military deterrence. Post War Challenges and Achievements Despite the striking similarity of the formation intentions between the United Nations (1945) and NATO (1949), the former appeared to lack the militarism that a common front capable of countering aggression would certainly need. The United Nations’ main assignment immediately after the world ear was to facilitate an end to aggression agenda among the world states. With special attention being required in Europe than anywhere else after the World War II, it could never be appropriate to use a global outfit such as the UN whose scope was rather wide and dived. The diplomatic provisions in the UN Charter seemed to contradict what real revolutionists needed to keep the worst hit Europe on its feet again (Dutkiewicz and Jackson 1998, p73). Apparently, entrusting such a security sensitive issue to an outfit that lacked a standing army was unreliable as the principle of goodwill it operated on at a time when tension was escalating. Disarmament was clearly not going to work in a scenario marred with uncertainty but a common strong military front was needed to supplement other plans. A declaration to the effect that an attack on one member of the formed allied union would translate into an attack on the entire NATO membership was deterrent enough after 1949. NATO therefore won for the first time in a war that had not been won since the security uncertainty began. The aggressors had been warned against unprecedented aggression that Europe had witnessed for quite some time. To attest to the success of aggression deterrence that NATO had facilitated in Europe, it was becoming rather obvious since its inception that attacking the weakest and vulnerable target would translate to the worst nightmare of provocation (Gardner 2004, p3). No aggressor would easily dare the mighty involvement of a complete allied force including the United States of America in the group. Unprecedented aggression was therefore contained through the firm declaration against erratic attack on any of the allied states. Without NATO, perhaps the several amorphous groupings that existed before would not have seen the end of the journey to non-aggression coexistence. In terms of possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it was possible to contain the worrying situation of the rush to nuclear proliferation. NATO embarked on a disarmament campaign that initially witnessed the introduction of some form of standardization of weaponry technology across the member states. By enforcing such programs, military technology was secured and contained within secure boundaries where possible threat of causing havoc in aggression would be disbanded. In conjunction with a similar campaign ran by the UN, it was possible for NATO to forcefully monitor activities of military technology such as would endanger the secure use of dangerous technology into weaponry. According to Hodge (2002, p23), chances of European survival during the Cold War were very remote with consideration of NATO’s absence at the time. In anticipation of another war outbreak at the height of escalating tension during the Cold War, NATO began to conduct allied military exercises in strategic maritime locations across Europe. A demonstration of might at the exercises by far sent a strong message to the world concerning the preparedness and willingness with which NATO was approaching the next possible war. Recruitment and registration of new members to increase popularity of the movement was embarked in a successful campaign that saw the numbers swell to unimaginable numbers. In an attempt to woo more European support for strategic positioning, NATO was capable of creating discord on the opposing side that the allies were facing from Germany and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. In the events that led to the NATO buildup which witnessed increased membership and support, the aggressors were weakened to such an extent that they sought to join the movement that was witnessing massive following. This success achieved by NATO by unifying much of the European continent on a common front attracted the desired approach of quelling tension. In fact, it can not be comprehended how some member states would have faired without NATO, within the framework of new international relations devoid of aggression and tensions. Such unification factors could only have been achieved through NATO, other organizations in existence having been unable to achieve this. Despite the earlier organizational integrity fears that marred NATO culminating in the withdrawal of France, there were restructuring events and return of France that enabled NATO to survive one of its existence nightmares. After the Cold War, major events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered the opposition of the existence of such a movement in Europe negligible. The subsequent entry of the disintegrated Soviet Union states into NATO membership could not offer a better chance to reshape the future of the organization (Gardner 1994, p32). It is therefore clear that the fears of a weaker alliance front due to withdrawal of a strategic player were comfortably be quashed by the influx of new membership by distinct states that made the Soviet Union as well as return of France; a major figure. From the return of France, vibrancy has been felt in the vocal and reenergized leadership position that it has since assumed. NATO can only be expected to grow stronger for the securing of the European strategic security agenda. Millennium Challenges and Achievements Terrorism was perhaps the very unfortunate threat that the European security integrity experienced towards the turn of the millennium. Terrorism soon developed into a common threat that the allied countries were once again facing, neither did it spare the former aggressors who were always on the receiving side of the allies’ agenda. In a different turn of events, the allies and the foes had reason to put a common interest together and face it jointly. As it appeared, the conditions created by terror were terrific than any of the earlier challenges that the entire world was experiencing. Only a year after the ushering in of the new millennium, the world’s security threat was shifted from the millennium bug security systems threat to the more potent and inclusive challenge posed by terror. A comprehensive war on terror had to be constituted from across the divide with the best military front being sought from every corner of the political and military organizations. The USA’s attack by terrorists on September 11 opened a new chapter that would facilitate a united front including the allies and the aggressors in a common front of tackling terror. In light of the urgency and the potency that the issue of terrorism poses in the new millennium, new ties ha to be sought from across the political realignment to facilitate a united assault against terrorism. NATO once again played a major role alongside the USA, the EU and the UN to launch a calculated approach against terrorism. Having identified the Taliban as well as the Al-Qaeda terror groups as the masterminds of the events of September 11, the common front had to act swiftly to facilitate the war on terror. NATO involvement in the offering of direct support to the US in fighting the terror groups in their hideouts in Afghanistan could not be overstated. Using the Article V of its formation, NATO found the strongest reason to participate in the war against terror since the US is a major member of the organization. As observed earlier on, the article entails the provision of justification of military attacks against a member state which is interpreted as an attack on the entire mighty organization that NATO is. Incidentally, this provision saw its application only in the war against terror, having been very successfully been enforced as enough deterrent to keep unprecedented aggression at bay (Gardner 2004, p3). According to the author, it is on record that Russia supported the war in Afghanistan despite the ideological differences that the two sides have endured for a long time since the World Wars. Part of the NATO strong involvement in the war on terror led by the US was the tragic interaction that its top leader had with Al-Qaeda terrorists who had concealed their identity as journalists, just days before the actual attacks in the US. The joint campaigns could be rated as one of the best and successful terror clear-out missions that the world has witnessed so far, despite the huge magnitude of the risk posed by terror. Recurrence of nuclear proliferation in the new millennium has been a threat that the European security policy has to be conscious of. Risking the nuclear proliferation program control by suspicious parties of the international community is a serious threat that the world also faces today. The voice of the international community seems to rely on a few powers that are likely to be faulty in their decisions. Non involvement of NATO in political processes seems to auger well with several perspectives lacking in major criticism on the campaign to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMD). After the Bush administration grave criticism of the mission in Iraq to wipe out WMD, it was apparent there was political interference in the process. Whether the President of the US acted accordingly in collaboration with other key leaders regarding the position of the Iraqi administration in nuclear proliferation is a political question. Since the policy employed by NATO seems to be less politically motivated or interfered with, it is clearer now that in future, the fight on elimination of WMD will require a more strategically positioned military outfit such as NATO. Today The Emergence of China on the global scene and its controversial position in several global security issues is perhaps one of the major challenges that NATO faces today. However, with the status and profile that NATO has been able to stage on the international arena, its vital role cannot be assumed in such times of controversies. While the direct contribution of China on the controversial debate on nuclear proliferation appears to rub the allies on the wrong side, it is only an organization of a transcontinental status such as NATO that can launch enough bargaining power to the negotiating table (Gardner 1994, p119). With the appropriate transformations and reforms, NATO is capable to launch a stronger power than a European Union formulation to stand in for a similar organization due to its limited scope. Involvement in international missions with a humanitarian attachment such as the recent Libyan mission demonstrates that NATO is better positioned to partake in emergency military programs than any other European outfit (Common Dreams 2011, p1). It is therefore plainly clear that the role that NATO plays is internationally recognized over the years for its active emergency participation. Suggestions that NATO should be replaced by the European Union are therefore out of place and inconsiderate of the capacity built by NATO over the years. Perhaps transforming the European Union for such military capacity would take longer than it took NATO bearing in mind its initial engagements were of a military nature unlike the European Union which several other roles to play (Gardner 1994, p7). The Libyan mission takeover by NATO from the allied forces is by far a demonstration of how a strong military outfit supported by the membership can achieve. The controversy marring the admissibility of the Libyan mission is certainly a question of guard and leadership which calls for a well coordinated leadership under the proposed transformations. Among the leadership transformations issues that NATO seems to suffer from include the actual delivery of orders to enforce a certain military action. It was initially evident that divisions arose early before the mission begun. While the leadership issues that are depended on the nature of the emergency in which military action is called upon are inherent to any from of organization, lack of political concepts of leadership could be the reason behind the differences. However, the main controversial position was initially taken by Germany which has since cleared its position according to Common Dreams, (2011, p1) Besides the disorientation that the European Union would suffer from picking over from NATO, it is not clear if the US and Canada would continue to be members of the European Union outfit due to the differences in continents of origin. As it stands now, strength of number is important and replacement of NATO with an already existing outfit would not only put at risk the coordinated front but would disrupt operations due to the uncertain and exceedingly huge scope of the EU. The gained experience of operating as an independent entity would be important in enhancement and maintenance of capacity expansion which would be lost if disbanded. NATO’s expansion program targeted at strength of numbers should be promoted in that the more the allies, the less the aggressors are. The EU has already suffered enough embarrassment in recruitment of members into its economic system and military arrangement would be even harder to achieve. Conclusion The European Union is an organization of countries that has achieved much politically and economically ever since its establishment after the Second World War. NATO is also an organization that is credited with a lot of strength and power, one of its member states being the United States of America, established more or less at the same time. The European Union has continuously made strides toward growing in military power, many times bringing new member states abode. Although having immense capabilities, the European Union is perceived by many spectators as not having the capacity to perform the functions that NATO has had to perform. In terms of military might, the latter is perceived to be better placed when armed conflict is to be quelled. This is the case considering that the EU has had several instances of diplomatic failures and almost always needs the United States of America together with other members of NATO to take a stand which it gladly follows. The European Union as an authority in dealing with international issues and especially conflict and military conflicts is an idea in vanity. The Union in itself has no military organization that can be deployed in the event of urgent need when compared to NATO. The replacement of NATO by References “NATO: Libya Mission Will Last As Long As Necessary,” [online] Common Dreams, 14 April 2011, Available from: [Accessed 30 April 2011] Catherine B. (2007). The Substantive Law of the EU: The four freedoms (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. Dutkiewicz, P. & Jackson, R. J. (1998) NATO looks East. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group El-Agraa A. (2007) The European Union: economics and politics. Cambridge University Press. Gardner, H. (1994) Surviving the millennium: American global strategy, the collapse of the Soviet empire and the question of peace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Gardner, H. (2004) NATO and the European Union: new world, new Europe, new threats. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Hodge, C. C. (2002) NATO for a new century: Atlanticism and European security. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Ian B. (January, 2009) “EU admits failures as international pressure grows for ceasefire”. The Guardian. Retrieved 29, April, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/israel-palestine-gaza-ceasefire Kaplan, L. S. (2010) NATO and the UN: a peculiar relationship. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. McCormick J. (2008) The European Union: politics and policies.Westview Press. Tardy, T. (2009) European security in a global context: internal and external dynamics. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Read More