NATO And Cold War Essay, Research Paper

The latter half of the twentieth century has been dominated by the Cold War and

the actions and events surrounding it. During this period different alliances

and treaties were formed and many of these were institutionalized. One such

alliance was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This organization

was set up by the Northern Atlantic Western Powers to combat the Eastern Soviet

threat. Today however NATO still exists and plays an active role in

international relations. The question asked then is why after the Soviet Threat

has dispersed an organization that was set up with the sole purpose of defeating

the Soviets, is still persisting. NATO was formed on the 4th of April 1949 with

an alliance of twelve independent nations committed to defence and security.

Between 1952 and 1982 four more nations joined and three more in March 1999. The

original alliance was formed with the purpose of stopping Soviet expansion in

Europe, with the United States as the main driving force. With the collapse of

the Soviet Union and the consequential end of the Cold War it may be asked why

has NATO survived and still plays an active and influential role in European

interstate politics. NATO has a definite reason for still continuing on in

Europe. According to Michael Ruhle (Senior Planning Officer, Policy Planning and

Speechwriting Section of NATO’s Political Affairs Division) NATO has changed

from a singular-purpose organization to a multi-purpose institution,

"working together to create a more benign strategic environment." Mr.

Ruhle argues that NATO is contributing to the "emerging Euro-Atlantic

security architecture." It is not really an institution but an architect.

The architecture being a "series of key political processes that shape the

strategic environment, the European integration process, the evolution of

Russia, the development of transatlantic relations, and the evolution of crisis

management in the Euro-Atlantic area." NATO can be seen to be an

institution aiming at peace and security within Europe. There are other

alliances than NATO that have become or are multi-purpose institutions. This can

be seen through the EU, with its enlargement operation and its designs for

Russia. Also the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in

defusing minority obstacles in Europe, overseeing elections in Bosnia and

working with an agreement in Kosovo. NATO, according to Mr. Ruhle is however,

unique as only it can offer coherency in bringing about these processes. The

NATO website offers an interesting perspective on the reasons for NATO’s

existence. "Today following the end of the Cold War and of the division of

Europe, the Alliance has been restructured to enable it to participate in the

development of cooperative security structures for the whole of Europe. It has

also transformed its political and military structures in order to adapt them to

peacekeeping and crisis management tasks undertaken in cooperation with

countries which are not members of the Alliance and with other international

organizations." Its peace plans and structures includes the North Atlantic

Cooperation Council (NACC), replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC)

and the Partnership for Peace (PfP). However there is a different way of looking

at the persistence of on organization such as NATO in contemporary international

relations. Stephen Walt argues that alliances that persist are a result of

hegemonic leadership, preserving credibility, domestic politics and elite

manipulation, the impact of institutionalization and ideological solidarity,

shared identities and security communities. A strong driving force behind an

alliance will sustain it even after the immediate threat has gone, especially if

that force is willing to bear the costs of the alliance and its purposes. The

hegemonic power within the alliance must be strongly committed to preserving and

even expanding the relationship. They must also be stronger than any in the

alliance that may no longer wish to participate or contribute. To survive the

alliance must be a symbol of credibility and resolve. Nations may be unwilling

to pull out of an alliance in case an opponent or another ally may see this move

as a lack of resolve. Walt argues that US involvement in Bosnia was a result of

the fear that no response would create further suspicion on NATO’s role and

future, rather than a genuine care for the Bosnian people. Alliances have also

been known to survive because of groups within a state are interested in the

continuation of a particular alliance. In the case of NATO, there has been

active support for NATO enlargement by Polish-Americans. Walt argues that the

higher the level of institutionalization there is the harder it becomes to break

up an alliance. Mr. Ruhle calls this bureaucratic inertia. In a highly

bureaucratic alliance there is a group of people who obviously don’t want the

alliance to break up. NATO is a good example of this as support stems from

former NATO officials, defence intellectuals, military officers, journalists and

policy analysts. All who have addressed the issues facing Euro-Atlantic

cooperation and conflict. Coupled with this is that a highly institutionalized

organization may indeed provide the necessary capabilities, that would be useful

in the future. Especially in the area of cost. NATO can build on its foundations

of cooperation began in the cold war and encourage continued relationships in

the Contemporary International System. When two nations share common political

and social values and objectives, an alliance may be easier to persist, even

after the original rationale is gone. Karl Deutsch "argued that forming a

security community rested on compatible values, expectations of economic gain, a

wide range of mutual transactions, broad elite networks and high levels of

social communication." As a summary, the reasons NATO still exists differ

according to perceptions. According to NATO, it is continued because of its

ability to contribute to the emerging Euro-Atlantic security architecture.

However, it can be argued that NATO persists because of its nature as an

organization. Organizations are not easy to break up especially one as large and

influential as NATO, plus it does provide a system of communication that can

encourage further cooperation and peace within Europe.