Globalaffairs

Issue 5/ October - November 2007
By Dimce Bukreski

The foundation of NATO dates back to the years of rising fear from the growing danger of communism. It was based on “right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” – article 51 of the UN Charter (1945). Throughout the Cold War the main aim of the Alliance was collective defence of the western liberal-democratic countries from communist ideology and the rising power of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Then, apart from maintaining its unity, NATO was solely concentrated on adapting its strategy and building capabilities to counter its main threat coming from the East. During that period of balance of power, the security interest of the Alliance around its geographical domain was important, however, it was impermissible to jeopardize the core task of collective defence by out of area destructions.

After the end of the Cold War and collapse of communism and its main pith - the Soviet Union, the Alliance was relatively quick in detecting the emergence of a new threat, which “had been transformed from being direct and deliberate to one that was indirect and perhaps unintended” (McCalla 1996 p.459). Realising that its primary threat does not come from a specific nation but from unstable nature of the post-Cold War era, the Alliance has become conscious of the newly emerged security circumstances and without delay started its transformation and expanded its functions and purposes. Among else, NATO has adapted its Strategy to a newly emerged security environment in the Euro Atlantic region and downsized and restructured its military forces into true joint multinational forces capable of undertaking out of area operations.

Nevertheless, it took some time the question of out of area operations to be understood and taken on board willingly. The case of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia is a clear example of that. It took few years of bloody war in the immediate neighbourhood of the Alliance for NATO to realise the necessity to act and go out of area.

The bombardment of Serb forces in Bosnia in 1995 was only a beginning of the new NATO’s understanding and approach to security and its engagement globally. Soon after, together with its partners, NATO undertook a number of out of area operations; first in Bosnia after signing the Dayton Agreement, and then in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) over Kosovo. The NATO’s engagement in FRY over humanitarian crisis in Kosovo was a real test for the cohesion of the Alliance, which had almost split during the bombardment of FRY over the question of state sovereignty versus human rights.

These new missions resulted in a slow shifting of the Alliance’s approach and understanding of security from a geographical to a functional one. However, it was ‘9/11’ that closed the discussion over the question whether the Alliance should challenge its security threats out of area or should meet them at home; “as one NATO Ambassador aptly put it, the out-of-area debate had collapsed together with the World Trade Center” (Scheffer 2004 p4). Since then, in order to face its security threats and give contribution to the world peace and stability the Alliance acts globally.

Nowadays, together with its partners, NATO operates in Kosovo but also in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq where the Alliance undertakes its newest mission of building and training the new Iraqi military forces. By carrying out the mission in Afghanistan, a country bordering China, NATO went not only out of area but out of continent and became a security player at global level. On the other hand, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (2004), the current NATO Secretary General, believes that the term ‘global’ is not the adverb to describe the Alliance but he argues that “the notion of a global NATO suggests a responsibility that the Alliance neither aspires to, nor could realistically sustain; and the Allies are agreed on that”. Nevertheless, whether NATO accepts the adverb ‘global’ or not, the Alliance in order to respond to its security challenges acts globally.

During the process of transformation, which is continuing, NATO was modified so that it can confront wide spectrum of security threats. However, this confrontation on global level creates a host of new demands for NATO. That is why, the Alliance is permanently in a lively debate about how to deal and counter the future common security challenges and accordingly transforms its strategy, structure and capabilities. That was actually the main rationale behind its transformation from a collective defence alliance into a collective security organization (Rupp 2000 p161).

Furthermore, to ensure peace and stability in the Europe-Atlantic region and obtain support for operations in areas outside of its geographic domain, NATO has developed, and will continue to improve its close cooperation with other institutions of global governance such as UN, WEU, EU and OSCE. In spite of that, in order to protect its interest, NATO has already shown that it would undertake collective security missions beyond the immediate defence of the Allies under or without UN/OSCE authority.

Only recently, Yost (1998 p.135) argued that in order to confront its newly emerged security threats NATO “was transformed into vehicle, on an ad hoc and selective basis, for collective security activities in the Euro-Atlantic region”. However, since then, during the process of its continuous transformation, NATO was further transformed. So today, it confronts wide spectrum of new security threats and protects interests of its member states not only in the Euro-Atlantic region but globally.

Future NATO is likely to continue to challenge its security threats globally. Even so, the Alliance will continue to be cautious about intervening in conflicts beyond its geographical realm, which is “in shark contrast with the obligatory nature of a Kantian or Wilsonian system of collective security” (Yost 1998 p.150). Hence, even though NATO gives great contribution to the world peace and stability, the Alliance does not replace the role of the United Nations as the universal pillar of the global governance, it only complements it.

Dimce Bukreski
MA in International Relations in Oxford Brookes University, UK

Bibliography:
- McCalla, Robert B. (1996), “NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War”, International organisation Vol. 50, No. 3: pp.445-475
- Rupp, R. (2000), “NATO 1949 and NATO 2000: From Collective Defence Toward Collective Security”, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3: pp. 154-176
- Scheffer, J. (2004) Global NATO?, Retrieved on 20 March 2005 from the www.transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/PDF/natogensec%20speech%20oct%2029.pdf
- United Nations Charter (1945), Retrieved on 20 March 2005 from the www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
- Yost, David (1998), “The New NATO and Collective Security”, Survival, Vol. 49, No. 2: pp. 135-160

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion

 Print Europe | Permalink | eva