In order to fully understand NATO’s last 70 years of existence, it is necessary to retrace the steps that have led NATO to be what it is today.
The following chapter is divided into three historical phases, analyzing the most important events.
II.1 FIRST PHASE: NATO’s founding and Cold War
II.1.a 1949: the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty 4 April, Washington.
After World War II, all countries were subjected to economic losses and millions of victims. During this period, two superpowers affirmed: The United States of America and the Soviet Union; at the same time, the UN was founded in order to peacefully solve future international controversies.
During the Yalta (February 1945) and Paris Conference (July-October 1946) the USA and USSR redesigned World’s borders by dividing Europe into two areas.
Germany was divided into 2 parts: The Western German Federal Republic, controlled by the Anglo-Americans and the Eastern German Democratic Republic controlled by the Red Army. Berlin was divided by an unpassable wall from 1961 to 1989 that aimed at dividing Berlin’s East and West population. These two areas were respectively controlled by the USA and USSR.
The relationship between the two superpowers seemed peaceful but English Prime Minister Winston Churchill described the European scenario as precarious and claimed that: “An iron curtain has descended across the continent”, legitimated by political and economic alliance treaties. During this period, the American President Truman drafted with the North Atlantic countries the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic Treaty, a political and military alliance also known as NATO. The Communist countries allied against the West establishing a mutual-defense organization: the Warsaw Treaty Organization. This phase constitutes the Cold War.
II.1.b 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the “RED NATO”
On June 26 1963, the American President John Kennedy pronounced a speech in Berlin regarding the division of the European World. According to his opinion, communism did not have an openness to the future and therefore countries that supported this orientation were not aware of freedom. The President encouraged people to go to Berlin in order to live a free and positive reality and to observe the two opposite living conditions deciding which one was the best between the free World and the Soviet Communism.
The wall was a security measure built by the Communist government of the German Democratic Republic that aimed at keeping Western Berliners from entering East Germany. The fall of the Berlin Wall occurred on November 9, 1989, what followed was:
- The United States of America became the leader of the new global society;
- The shattering of the communist ideology;
- New conflicts due to the end of the USSR.
The countries that did not sign the Warsaw Pact did not belong anymore to the USSR, some became republics while others joined NATO (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland). Czechoslovakia was divided between Czech Republic and Slovakia; Romania, as well as Bulgaria, joined the European Union; Hungary was governed by the far-right leader Orban and Russia is governed by Kgb Vladimir Putin since 2012.
II.1.c 1991: after the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO allied with its former enemies.
After the end of the Cold War, NATO strengthened its political and military alliance. NATO’s aim was to create not only a collective defense but also a collective
security. In order to achieve these objectives, the Atlantic Treaty allied with ex-opponent countries (Partnership for Peace or PfP) to obtain international stability and to undertake democratic reforms in these former communist countries. The NATO-Russia Council (NRC, 2002) was established to strengthen the relationship between Russia and the Atlantic Treaty. Within the NRC, both NATO members and Russia participate in consultations and if necessary undertake joint initiatives.
The new alliance has to promote global peace and start military peacekeeping, peace enforcing and stabilization missions.
II.2 SECOND PHASE: REUNIFIED EUROPE
II.2.a 1995: NATO starts its first significant operation of crisis resolution in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
NATO’s first collective security mission occurred in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; during the war (1995-2004), NATO dispatched the following contingents: The Implementation Force (IFOR), The Stabilization Force (SFOR) and Operation ALTHEA to ensure security in Bosnia. NATO’s troops entered Kosovo for the first time in 1999 but still today the Kosovo Force (KFOR) provides according to its mandate, a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement for all people and communities in Kosovo.
A critical point in the Balkans is Belgrade and Pristina, the respective capitals of Serbia and Kosovo. Since 2013, in this area are ongoing a series of negotiation talks (some failed) led by the European Council.
The relationship between Serbia and Kosovo changed positively when French Prime Minister, Macron visited Belgrade, since then, dialogues between the two cities resumed. However, in the meantime, KFOR is continuing to train its personnel in internal security and it is helping to ensure stability in the area without affecting Kosovo’s politics.
Between 2001 and 2003, NATO contributed to the normalization of the situation in Macedonia by disarming ex-combatants and giving support for the reconstruction of Macedonian security structures.
Therefore, all these operations implemented by NATO prove how in the following two decades since 1989, the organization gradually shifted from being an organization mainly based on collective defense to an organization that focuses on collective security. The concept of security is broad: it means achieving both military and non-military objectives, being inclusive rather than exclusive since it is based on involvement and cooperation rather than deterrence and containment and it recognizes the value of other bilateral or multilateral security agreements for the maintenance of regional security.
II.2.b The issue on NATO’s out of area operations.
NATO’s intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to the debate regarding the admissibility of out of area operations, i.e. outside the traditional area of the Alliance action.
Regarding this matter, there are two different points of view:
- Global NATO agrees on intervening wherever the interests of its member are threatened;
- Regional NATO (France first and foremost) is against the operations outside the Western borders.
The discussion regarding trespassing has been won by the global NATO supporters. The war was continuing since negotiations between the European Union and the United Nations failed; only NATO had the ability to intervene and put an end to the conflict. In 1995 NATO implemented Operation Deliberate Force, after 20 days of bombardments, Bosnian Serbs signed the Dayton Peace Agreement.
The out of area intervention is accepted since it has humanitarian reasons and because the territory of former Yugoslavia is:
- A complicated reality at the center of Europe;
- A conflictual area subject to violence and illicit arms, drugs and human trafficking;
- The nerve center of instability from an economic, political and social point of view due to previous extreme left-wing politics.
II.2.c 2001: Massive terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C.
After the intervention in Yugoslavia starts an era characterized by terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. (2001), Madrid (2004) and London (2005).
In order to face this issue, NATO intervenes by invoking Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty.
II.2.d NATO invokes for the first time in history Article 5 and adopts a broader approach regarding security.
The first terrorist attack in the United States of America occurred at the Twin Towers in New York and at the Pentagon. The day after the 9/11 attacks, for the very first time in history the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5; NATO members were exhorted to intervene in regards of the Alliance's defensive and mutual aid nature.
The al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden was considered to be the instigator of the attacks.
At the beginning, the United States of America decided not to appeal NATO in order to not have fighting restrictions. However, the USA allied with Great Britain which was bombing the Taliban forces, allowing the militias in opposition to the Kabul regime (the so-called "Northern Alliance") to take control of the country.
From now on, the new geographical bipolarism is between North and South, West and Islam.
II.3 THIRD PHASE: NATO AFTER 9/11
II.3.a 2003: NATO takes the command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
The Anglo-American and Afghan coalition wins against the Taliban. The UN represents the International Security Assistance Force that has to ensure security in Kabul and support the new Afghan authorities during the reconstruction of security forces. The ISAF is guided by NATO since 2003.
The mission in Afghanistan allows other out of area NATO missions; the most important are:
- Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa;
- The Libya mission;
- The Syrian mission.
II.3.b 2010: NATO adopts the 2010 Strategic Concept “Active Engagement, Modern Defense”.
After these events, NATO drafts in Lisbon the 2010 Strategic Concept. The document outlines the Alliance's new purpose and nature and its fundamental security tasks. However, most of the objectives still represent outstanding issues, among all of them:
- The establishment of an anti-missile shield;
- Relations with Russia;
- Fair sharing of military expenditure between Allies;
- The so-called smart defense;
- The problem of the growing strategic reorientation of the United States of America.
One of the Alliance’s main objectives is to increase the relations with Moscow.
Since 2013 Russia-NATO relations have declined due to the Russian missile base and NATO’s missile shield that aims at protecting the European territory. The anti-missile shield was based in the Czech Republic, Poland, California and Alaska. The United States of America was the major financial backer; Putin saw this as a danger because the United States would have gained power in Europe. The missile shield project was withdrawn in 2009. At the NATO summit in Lisbon in 2010, the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program was presented, it was a system capable of defending the entire Euro-American area with The European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). This approach consists of sea (Mediterranean and Black Sea) and land-based (plus a site in Poland) configurations of the Aegis missile defense system and interceptors. However, the missile defense system has not been completed due to lack of money.
Compared to Europe’s contribution, the United States of America were the main financers for the development of this project. However, The USA claimed that they are paying to provide Europe with a missile shield without obtaining any protection for themselves, nor a significant economic and military participation from the Allies.
II.3.c Burden Sharing: an active participation from an economic and military point of view.
The debate regarding the utility and the economic participation for the anti-missile shield triggered concerns regarding the benefits of the Alliance’s policy and on the uneven economic contribution. The focus of the discussion is the so-called burden sharing that is defined as the relative weight of the distribution of costs and risks across Allies in pursuit of common goals.
The Allies aim at financing NATO in proportion to the size of their respective GDP; the USA pays 22% of the total, Germany almost 15%, France and the UK
10.5%, Italy 8%, Canada 6% and the following states to decrease. In 2006, the Ministers of Defense of the member states committed themselves to allocate 2% of the GDP to military expenditure, but currently the 2% quota is respected only by 5 countries: USA (3.5%), Greece (2.27%), Estonia (2.14%), Great Britain (2.1%), Latvia (2%), while 15 countries (including France, Germany, Italy) pay less than 1%, falling short of what was established.
The current American president, Donald Trump, claims that the US is paying more than any other NATO country to defend the Euro-American zone. On one hand, the USA wants to defend itself against terrorists and missile threats that arise from the East and the Middle East and that can affect not only the American community but all the countries of the Atlantic Alliance, as well as the whole World.
In the last few years USA interests have shifted to Asia and the Pacific by negotiating with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, Thailand and Vietnam.
Above all, with China, the Strategic and Economic Dialogue was reached. The dialogues also address military-related issues, in response to the growing demand from local players for greater cooperation between their forces and those of the United States.
II.3.d Smart defense
At the Chicago Summit in 2012, NATO promoted the concept of "smart defense" to improve the quality of military spending by applying three principles:
prioritization, specialization and cooperation. Smart defense aims at increasing the efficiency of the armed forces of the Member States without necessarily increasing defense budgets. The European Defense Agency (EDA) is responsible for developing the military capabilities of European countries to promote the principles of smart defense.