Abkhazia Institute for Social and Economic Research

Home

Research

NATO’s Latest Enlargement and Its Implications for the United States and Russia

Written by Devi Khaindrava

Saturday, 25 June 2005

Article Index
NATO’s Latest Enlargement and Its Implications for the United States and Russia
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

Page 1 of 4

By Devi Khaindrava

In violent conditions of international anarchy, which is permeated by mistrust and an ever-present threat of war over “anything”, states are inclined towards a special kind of collaboration—formation of military alliances. These are most commonly viewed as a response to fear and represent the finest manifestation of organized international cooperation “in order to deal with the dilemmas of common interests (security issues).”

“If NATO fails to expand, we might be heading
for a new global catastrophe… [which] could
cost us all much more than the two world wars.”
Vaclav Havel, President of Czech Republic

After World War II, security alliances formed in rapid succession by the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States in particular formed a ring of alliance that extended its reach globally as part of its overall strategy of containing the Soviet Union. The Rio Pact, created in 1947, is the first US-based alliance of the postwar era. The Rio Pact declares that an armed attack against any American state is an attack on all American states. NATO was formed in 1949, followed by the United States military pact with Australia and New Zealand in 1951 (ANZUS). It provides the regional security architecture for member states and, linked with the US-Japanese Security Treaty which was established the same year, ensures a stabilizing and active American presence in the region. The Soviet reaction to the United States spree of alliance formations was the creation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact in 1955. But of all the alliances created after World War II by the United States the NATO alliance has been seen as the most important and most successful in keeping the regional peace.   It provided a vehicle for the application of American power, and vision to the security order in Europe.

NATO functioned successfully throughout the Cold War as the main bastion of Western defense (and of American containment policy and forward defense) against the Soviet Union. Despite nearly continuous internal wrangling over military policy and burden-sharing, the alliance sustained a solid front against Soviet political and military pressure and accomplished all its objectives.

The First Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Ismay, in a memorable phrase described its pre-1989 objectives in this way: it was designed “to keep the Soviets out, the Americans in and the Germans down”. Events since the end of the Cold War have brought fundamental changes in at least two of these areas (the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the unification of Germany). Therefore there has been understandable disagreement about future of NATO. For many it has outlived its usefulness. In the 1990’s K. Waltz expected “NATO to dwindle at the Cold War’s end and ultimately disappear,” he went on—“NATO is no longer even a treaty of guarantee because one can not answer the question, guarantee against whom?” Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who had opposing views argued that “you don’t cancel your insurance policy just because there have been fewer burglaries on your street in the last twelve months.” In other words, the Russian threat may have receded, but to dissolve NATO would amount to recklessness. Surprisingly, many analysts forgetting the fact that the end of the Cold War was not caused by democracy and interdependence, but by the West applying enormous military and economic pressure (remember e.g. Star Wars). The Soviet Union was not driven toward the reforms (which got out of hand) by old Soviet nomenclature in order to democratize an “Evil Empire,” but with a purpose to rescue the Soviet economy decimated by mismanagement and stagnation during the decades of Brezhnev’s rule and retain the country’s dominant position in the world.

Due to changed circumstances, NATO’s reliance on nuclear option to counter threats in Europe became less significant and concerns about its transformation not its demise became a focus of the Euro-Atlantic security community. Hence, the debate about adaptation has revolved largely around the political, social and economic aspects of Euro-Atlantic cooperation. This comprises institutional realignments with European organizations and geographical expansion into Central and Eastern Europe. Expansion has proved controversial in at least three ways: the question of which states to admit as new members, the attitude of existing members and above all, the reaction of Russia.

Prev - Next >>

Last Updated ( Sunday, 19 August 2007 )