www.ataedu.org
www.ataedu.org
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
2 HOUR TEACHING MODULE
NATO
- ITS ROLE AS AN INTERGOVERMENTAL
ORGANIZATION
THIS 2-HOUR TEACHING MODULE CONTAINS A BASIC INTRODUCTION TO NATO
AS AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL SECURITY ORGANIZATION.
IT CONTAINS A SECTION WHICH ADDRESSES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
NATIONAL, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND SUPRANATIONAL LEVELS IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.
FURTHERMORE, IT CONTAINS A MODEL DEPICTING A METHOD FOR STUDENTS
TO ANALYZE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND GENERATE THEIR PERSONAL
OPINIONS.
FINALLY, THIS MODULE ALSO CONTAINS A CHART OF “PROS” AND “CONS”
REGARDING NATO.
1
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 1
NATO: WHAT IT IS
• A political/military intergovernmental organization
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the world’s major international
institutions. NATO’s essential and enduring purpose, set out in the Washington
Treaty, is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members through political
and military means.
• A key institution for Alliance members to implement their security objectives
NATO is one of the key institutions through which the Alliance members implement
their security objectives. NATO is an intergovernmental organization in which
member countries retain their full sovereignty and independence. It serves as a forum
in which NATO member countries consult and take communal decisions on matters
affecting their security.
• More than a military alliance…
NATO’s structures facilitate continuous consultation, coordination and cooperation
between members on issues related to the political, military, and economic aspects of
security. Furthermore, there exists cooperation in non-military fields, such as: science,
information, the environment, and disaster relief.
• Collective defense
The Alliance works on the principle that the security of each member country
depends on the security of them all. If the security of any one is threatened, all are
affected. In signing the Washington Treaty, NATO’s founding charter, every member
state commits to respecting this principle – sharing the risks and responsibilities, as
well as the advantages of a collective defense. This also means that many aspects of
the defense planning and preparation that a NATO member country had previously
undertaken alone are now undertaken together with their Allies. The costs of
providing the facilities needed for the military forces to train and work together are
also shared.
Each country remains independent and free to make its own decisions. However, in
joining NATO, a member is firm in the belief that planning together and sharing
resources creates a collective defense that enables a level of security which is higher
than a country could achieve alone.
2
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 2
NATO: ITS ORIGINS
• The Cold War: Ideological and political divisions
In the aftermath of the Second World War, Eastern and Western Europe found
themselves separated by the ideological and political divisions of the Cold War.
Eastern Europe was dominated by the Soviet Union.
• 1949: NATO is founded with 12 member countries
In 1949, 12 countries from both sides of the Atlantic formed the North Atlantic
Treaty Association. One of the main reasons for NATO’s creation was a fear that the
Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of
the continent.
• The Marshall Plan and NATO: stabilizing Western Europe
Between 1947 and 1952, the Marshall Plan provided the financial means to stabilize
Western European economies. NATO’s role, as a political and military alliance, was
to provide for collective defense against any form of aggression, and maintain a
secure environment for the development of democracy and economic growth. Acting
US President Harry S. Truman described the relationship between the Marshall Plan
and NATO as: “two halves of the same walnut.”
The 12 founding members of NATO ensured that national defense policies would
gradually become more integrated and interdependent.
By the early 1950s, international developments, culminating in the outbreak of the
Korean War, were interpreted by the NATO members as Soviet expansionism. As
such, NATO increased its efforts to develop the military structures which were
needed to accomplish their commitment to joint defense. Many of the European
members believed that having US forces on European soil discouraged the Soviet
Union from believing in the success of future aggression. Critical voices against
NATO at that time stated that the presence of North American forces would only
provoke the Soviet Union and lead to an unnecessary escalation of the tense
relationship.
3
www.ataedu.org
• NATO’s initial Enlargements
The first enlargement of NATO took place in 1952 by accepting Greece and Turkey
into the Alliance. Three years later, the Federal Republic of Germany joined, followed
by Spain in 1982.
4
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 3
THE END OF THE COLD WAR – THE END OF NATO?
• The break-up of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union
During the Cold War, NATO’s role and purpose were clearly defined by the
perceived security threat posed by the Soviet Union. But, this context changed
dramatically in the early 1990s, with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact1 and the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
• NATO’s future existence is questioned
A heated debate began, and subsequently questions were raised regarding the future
existence of NATO. Some argued that there was no longer a need for NATO, while
others claimed that defense expenditure and investment in armed forces should be
reduced considerably.
The international sphere was now characterized by hegemony (the primacy of US
military power). There no longer was any direct threat to the countries of the NATO
Alliance.
Many NATO Allies cut their defense spending significantly – some by as much as 25
per cent.
• New security threats emerge
Sadly, hopes for a larger peace proved to be too optimistic. In the 1990s, it became
clear that although the end of the Cold War removed the threat of a global conflict,
instability in some parts of Europe was on the rise. The new threats were: ethnic and
regional conflict, acts of terrorism, sabotage, organized crime, disruption of the flow
of vital resources, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and spread of warfare
technology, the violation of human rights, political instability and economic fragility.
Specifically, regional conflict dominated the security debate of the 1990s, and
influenced the transformation of NATO. A number of regional conflicts, often
fuelled by ethnic tensions, broke out in the former Yugoslavia and in parts of the
former Soviet Union – creating the fear of escalation.
The Warsaw Pact was created in 1955 to counteract NATO. It consisted of: the
Soviet Union, Albania (withdrew in 1968), Poland, the Czech Republic, Eastern
Germany, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.
1
5
www.ataedu.org
NATO countries came to the conclusion that the existence of the Alliance was in fact
necessary. They decided that their security was best guaranteed by a commitment to
collective defense and cooperation. However, NATO had to adapt to the new
security environment.
• The need for NATO transformation
To address new security threats, NATO has taken on a larger number of
responsibilities – expanding its areas of activity, and transforming its internal
structure to include more partners. One can say that the concept of defense has
broadened since the end of the Cold War, and consequently NATO has had to
transform accordingly.
The transformation of NATO is multifaceted, and incorporates four main elements:
A) The enlargement of the Alliance to include new member and partner countries
B) The creation of projects which further peace-support and crisis management
operations, including “out-of-area” missions
C) The change of NATO’s military structure and the creation of the NATO
Response Force
D) The development of civil emergencies, science and environment initiatives
6
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 4
CHART COMPARING MODELS FOR SECURITY
PERCEPTIONS
This model shows the changes in the security context of the 1990s.
The Cold War
1990s
Bi-polar (Equality in military power)
Hegemony
Direct threat
No direct threat
Threat of a symmetrical global war
Threat of asymmetrical regional and
sub-regional conflict + global terrorism
Regional cooperation + enemy
perceptions
Broad international cooperation +
partner perceptions
To secure territory
To secure values
The chart shows the changes in the security environment from the Cold War period
to the 1990s. During the Cold War, the security perceptions, both of the West and
the East, were they were equal in strength – leading to a fierce arms race. After the
breakdown of the Warsaw Pact, and of the Soviet Union, it became apparent that the
Western countries – in particular the US – were leading in regards to military
capabilities. Therefore, the world of the 1990s was dominated by only one super
power, the U.S – thereby giving way to a hegemonic security environment.
Whereas the Cold War was based on the threat of a global war, no such threat existed
in the 1990s. The threat perception and security concerns of the 1990s were rooted in
the increase in regional conflicts and the rise of global terrorism. NATO no longer
saw any nation-state posing it a direct threat, and was building cooperation with
former enemies, with the aim to deal with regional conflicts and global terrorism.
During the 1990s, a major change came about concerning security perceptions.
During the Cold War, there was a clear objective to obtain defense and military
capabilities in an effort to secure one’s territory, a thereby secure one’s citizens from
external aggression. As no nation-state was threatening the NATO countries,
NATO’s new objective dealt with the spread of such key values as: liberty, freedom
and democracy (missions in the Balkans).
7
www.ataedu.org
As the security context of the 1990s changed, so did NATO. It had to change
internally by adapting its military structures and capabilities to deal with new tasks,
such as: crisis management, peacekeeping and peace-support operations, in addition
to ensuring their continued ability to fulfill their fundamental defense roles.
In response to the new security challenges, NATO has changed from being a tightly
knit Alliance with a responsibility for collective defense, to becoming the focus for a
partnership of nations cooperating closely in the wider field of security.
8
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 5
NATO: HOW IT WORKS
• Consensus decision-making
The decision-making in NATO is based on consensus – meaning that all decisions
must be unanimous. The reasons for this procedure are that the sovereignty and
independence of each member country are valued highly. Secondly, when a decision
is reached, it has the full backing and commitment of all the member countries. On
the other hand, this procedure can result in a slow and difficult decision-making
process.
• The North Atlantic Council
NATO’s most important decision-making body is the North Atlantic Council (NAC).
Each member country is represented by a permanent representative with the rank of
ambassador, and supported by a national delegation consisting of diplomatic staff and
defense advisers.
The council meets at ambassador level at least once a week, and often more
frequently. There are also regular meetings of the council at the level of foreign
ministers, defense ministers and, from time to time, heads of state and government.
• NATO Secretary General
NATO is headed by a Secretary General who is appointed for approximately four
years. He or she is a senior international statesman from one of the member
countries. The Secretary General chairs meetings of the North Atlantic Council, and
other important NATO bodies – he or she helps to build consensus among the
member nations.
In managing day-to-day activities of the Alliance, he or she is supported by an
international staff of experts and officials from NATO countries.
• No NATO forces
NATO does not have its own armed forces. Most forces available to NATO remain
under full control of the national command until they are assigned tasks related to
collective defense, such as: new missions, peacekeeping and peace-support. NATO’s
political and military structures provide for the advance planning required to enable
national forces to carry out these tasks, as well as the organizational provisions
needed for their joint command, control, training and deployment.
9
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 6
NATO’S MILITARY CAPABILITIES
After the end of the Cold War, there was a sense of euphoria which led many to
believe that the world was a safer place. As a result of this, national defense budgets
fell drastically among NATO member countries.
• Military budgets
In the years between 1980 and 1989, the total defense expenditure of NATO Allies,
as a percentage of GDP, was 4.5 %. Proportionally, European Allies used 3.5% of
their combined GDP and the US used 5.6% of its GDP. In the end of the 1990s –
more precisely in 1999 - the average of NATO Allies’ defense expenditure dropped
to 2.5% of GDP. The European Allies used 2.1%, and the US used 3.0%2.
.
After the terror attack on the U.S. in 2001, the U.S. increased their defense
expenditure – in recent years, it has reached around 3.8% of GDP; in comparison,
the average of total European (European NATO Member Countries) expenditure
remains at around 2.8% of the GDP3.
Measured in absolute numbers, the US defense budget is more than twice as large as
all of the European Allies’ defense budgets put together (the US defense budget is
larger than all of the defense budgets of the world put together!).
This great difference amongst the national defense budgets is the cause of many
discussions, within NATO, between the U.S. and European countries regarding
military expenditure.
• New military technologies
The debate is not only about the amount of money spent on defense, but also
addresses how the expenditures are made (in other words, what is purchased).
After the Gulf War of 1991, analysts concluded that the nature of the combat
indicated the emergence of a new kind of warfare – many referred to this as a
revolution in military affairs (RMA). As such, a new military approach based on
information, communication and advanced technology was used – leading to better
planning, increased operational precision and smaller, more efficient military forces.
According to the U.S. Department of Defence, the RMA information and
2
3
Birte Hansen og Torben Jensen “NATO-en alliance i bevægelse”. 2004
The Military Balance 2005-2006. The International Institute for Strategic Studies. Routledge
10
www.ataedu.org
communication technology allows for full specter dominance, which implies complete
surveillance of the operational area (including the ability to track enemy
communications and armament movements), even allowing for the possibility to
block enemy information sharing networks
Today, the Americans army is the only ones to have the RMA-forces – the majority
of the European countries are still operating on the technological level that the
Americans did in the 1970s and 1980s. For this reason, it was mainly American
troops that were used in the NATO air campaign against Serbia in 1999.
From the U.S. perspective, European countries are relying on old fashioned military
capabilities – and moreover, their defense budgets are not being used efficiently as
each European country is still building individual defense systems – leading to
duplication instead of specialization. Specialization, in this case would imply that each
country dedicate itself to a specific area of defense capability that NATO could
utilize, if need be.
The NATO Reaction Force (NRF) is a main instrument used in overcoming the
capabilities gap among the NATO Allies – thus leading to increased interoperability.
By investing in the newest technology, all countries involved are benefiting from a
modernized defense capability. Furthermore, the NRF guarantees that NATO can act
rapidly, and deploy a joint force when needed.
• Soft vs. hard power: Europe and the US
The topic of many heated debates between most European countries and the U.S. is
whether to prioritize spending on development aid or military budgets.
Often, it appears as though the European countries are involved in conflict
prevention and/or post-conflict reconstruction (soft security instruments/nonmilitary power), while the U.S. is engaging in conflict intervention (hard security
instruments/military power). In this respect, the U.S. is leading military interventions
– risking the lives of its soldiers – while the Europeans are taking care of long-term
stability building. In common wording, this has been described as: “the Americans
doing the cooking, and the Europeans doing the dishes” or “the Americans kick in
the door, and the Europeans clean up the mess.”
• NATO forces: a critical assessment
Since the end of the Cold War, the overall size of conventional forces has been
significantly reduced – as such, ground forces committed to the Alliance by member
nations have been cut by 35 per cent. The number of major naval vessels has been
11
www.ataedu.org
reduced by over 30 per cent and air force combat squadrons by some 40 per cent.
Furthermore, most forces are no longer kept at a high level of military readiness.
Many of the European Allies have reduced their defense budgets, and the U.S. is by
far the biggest contributor to the Alliance.
Even though NATO has reformed its structure and capabilities, critics are still
pointing at two main challenges within NATO. From their perspective: 1. NATO is
viewed as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy (asymmetrical power balance) and 2.
NATO is lacking the military capability and operability to become a strong and
effective Alliance.
Though NATO, compared to other intergovernmental organizations, has achieved an
unprecedented level of military interoperability, one must ask the question: “is it good
enough.” Some view the military structure as being too old fashioned – some argue
that if NATO really wants to be effective, its member countries should use their
national defense budgets to specialize their military contributions to NATO.
12
www.ataedu.org
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS VERSUS
NATIONAL DEFENSE
International organizations
One of the most significant features of 20th century politics has been the growing
importance of international organizations. These organizations are defined as
transnational because they exercise jurisdiction within an international area
comprising several states. Historically, the most common form of the international
body has been the empire – examples of this range from the ancient empires of
Sumeria, Egypt, China, Persia and Rome, to modern empires of the U.K., France,
Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. However, modern international organizations
have different origins and are entirely different in character. Typically, they have been
set up by a number of sovereign states to facilitate international cooperation.
International organizations in the 20th century
The 20th has seen the emergence of numerous international organizations, such as:
the League of Nations (1919) – succeeded in 1945 by the United Nations (UN),
NATO, The European Economic Community (EEC), the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fond (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) and the Organization of African Unity (OAU). What all these organizations
have in common, is that they provide a framework for intergovernmental relations –
enabling states to take concerted action without sacrificing sovereign power. The
philosophy behind these organizations is that they provide a more effective means by
which to pursue national interests in the 20th century – be they security issues or
economic development.
13
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 7
CHART COMPARING
INTERGOVERNMENTALISM VERSUS SUPRANATIONALISM
Intergovernmentalism
Supranationalism
Sovereign independence
Authority which lies higher than the
nation-state
Treaties,
alliances,
leagues, International federations in which
confederations.
sovereignty is shared between central and
peripheral bodies
Unanimous decision-making regarding Majority decision-making or one body
matters of vital national importance
that has complete decision-making
powers
As the members of NATO have kept their full sovereignty and independence,
NATO is considered an intergovernmental organization. The European Union on
the other hand, encompasses a mixture of both intergovernmentalism and
supranationalism. As such, in some areas, the EU is able to make binding rules for its
member countries.
In today’s security environment, each nation-state is faced with the decision of
whether to rely on national, intergovernmental or supranational defense. Since the
establishment of NATO in 1949, the Alliance has grown from 12 till 26 member
countries – this enlargement clearly indicates that there has been an increased
tendency to seek national security through intergovernmental arrangements.
However, despite this trend, surveys about NATO from within member countries
show that skepticism about intergovernmental defense remains.
14
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 8
CHART SHOWING THREE DIMENSIONS OF
RESPONSIBILITY
Responsible for whom?
Responsible for what?
National
Own citizens
National security
International
Other states
International peace
Humanitarian
Humans everywhere
Human rights
Within the field of foreign policy, one can distinguish between three levels of
responsibility.
1. National responsibility
2. International responsibility
3. Humanitarian responsibility
• National responsibility
According to this conception, statesmen are only responsible for the well-being of
their fellow citizens. The only fundamental standard of conduct that states should
adhere to is that of national self-interest. In this regard, national security is the
fundamental moral keystone of a country’s behavior in its relations with other
countries.
This view supports the notion that statesmen must always put their nation and its
citizens first, avoiding risks which compromise the security and welfare of the state.
As such, collaboration is acceptable with other countries only when it is advantageous
or necessary (Machiavelli and the theory of realism).
In sum, this approach maintains that states have no international obligations other
than their national interests. Human beings have rights only by virtue of being the
citizens of a state – as such, statesmen are responsible for defending their own
citizens, and not the citizens of other states.
15
www.ataedu.org
• International responsibility
According to this approach, statesmen have foreign policy obligations which are
derived from membership to the international society – this involves rights and duties
which are defined by international law. The principles supported by this view include:
being a responsible citizen of the international society, recognizing and respecting the
international rights and legitimate interests of other states, observing international law
and complying with the rules of war (Grotius and the theory of rationalism).
This approach is derived from the following conception of international obligation:
states are not isolated or autonomous political entities which responsible only to
themselves – their relations are increasingly interconnected, and this is demonstrated
by practices of recognition, diplomacy and commerce. Consequently, states have
obligations to other states and to the international society as a whole, from which
they derive important rights and benefits. These foreign obligations are independent
of a state’s domestic obligations towards its own people.
• Humanitarian responsibility
According to this concept, statesmen are first and foremost human beings, and as
such they have a fundamental obligation to respect and protect human rights not only
in their own country, but in all the countries of the world. This approach implies that
all human beings are protected by fundamental human rights (Kant and the theory of
revolutionism and cosmopolitanism).
In this case, the criterion for responsible statecraft goes well beyond international
responsibility. This approach is derived from a conception of human obligation –
before one can is a citizen of a state and a member of its government, one is a human
being. Naturally, this entails fundamental obligations that every human being must
observe. The traditional way of expressing one’s obligations as a human being is by
claiming that there is a natural law – a universal law of reason and of conscience
leading to what we now call “human rights.”
• The use of the Three dimensions of responsibility model
The model of the three responsibilities in international relations can be used to
understand and analyze international relations, in other words: how it is.
It can also be used to form one’s own normative viewpoint or approach to the
international community, in other words: how should be.
16
www.ataedu.org
The three responsibilities model is useful for the study of NATO. During the years
of the Cold War, NATO’s existence was mainly based on the realist approach – its
member countries focusing on the primacy of national security. However, during the
1990s, the basis for NATO existence has changed dramatically – it now operates
within the realm of all three responsibility approaches. Therefore, NATO is today
responding to civil emergencies (chemical spills, floods, earthquakes), building
partnerships, rebuilding and stabilizing transition countries, creating dialogue and
cooperation with Russia, securing the dialogue and cooperation between the
European countries and the U.S., working in peacekeeping and crisis management
operations (Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995, Kosovo 1999, Southern Serbia 2001,
Macedonia in 2001, Afghanistan 2003) and ensuring cooperation in scientific
research.
NATO’s operations are influenced by all three responsibility reflections in order to
account for the normative complexity of international relations and the modern
security environment. But, the relative extent by which each responsibility approach
is influencing the actions and transformation of NATO is open to discussion.
17
www.ataedu.org
SLIDE 9
NATO: PROS AND CONS
One can find many reasons for being NATO-skeptic. But some of the arguments
often heard include:
• A lack of confidence that NATO will actually defend its member country if
attacked
• A philosophical approach that arms and guns only create more violence.
Often this argument is accompanied by one which states that resources
should be spent on development aid instead
• A believe that European countries should rely on an integrated European
Union defense, rather than one which depends on U.S. involvement
• A believe that each country should defend itself - and being a member of an
intergovernmental organization simply blocks effective decision making and
delays rapid reaction
• NATO is a vehicle for aggression and acts to impose Western values on other
countries (similar to imperialism and/or colonialism)
Those who defend NATO and its approach of relying on intergovernmental defense
systems often put forward the following arguments:
• Small countries cannot defend themselves, and therefore they need to have
allies – while big countries need buffer zones to create stability and access to
military ground and air space
• NATO not only provides defense against external aggressors, but also ensures
that no internal violent conflicts can arise between its member countries
• NATO is the only way to maintain the transatlantic relationship
(US/Canada’s relations with Europe)
• Fighting terrorism today cannot be achieved solely through national defense
strategies
• NATO has provided for the collective defense of its members since its
foundation in 1949 – if it is in fact successful why question its future
existence
• NATO is more than a military alliance – it works in crisis management
situations, peacekeeping and peace-support operations, scientific research,
and environmental protection. The security threats of today, including: ethnic
and regional conflict, genocide, acts of terrorism, sabotage, organized crime,
disruption of the flow of vital resources, the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and spread of arms technology, the violation of human rights, political
instability and economic fragility can only be handled by intergovernmental or
18
www.ataedu.org
supranational organizations. NATO is the only military organization capable
to intervene in such a broad range of circumstances.
19
www.ataedu.org
THE ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION
Who We Are
The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is the umbrella organization for a network of
40 national NGOs working to generate information and foster debate on NATO. As
such, the ATA aims to support a strong international civil society.
The ATA regularly organizes seminars on the national, regional and international
levels; helping educators and students understand issues related to NATO, EU, UN,
and the current political environment.
The ATA’s educational dimension was created with the objective to provide nonpartisan educational material on NATO. As such, it supplies teachers, from NATO
member and partner countries, with high caliber educational material in an effort to
inform the youth of the ATA countries about NATO, security issues, and the
broader study of international relations.
The NATO Educational Toolkit
The NATO Educational Toolkit was created by Mr. Troels Egeskov Sørensen,
Executive Consultant on Education, in cooperation with think tanks, academics and
teachers from the Euro-Atlantic community.
For more information, or if you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact Mr. Sørensen ([email protected] ).
20