The North Atlantic Treaty Organization:

The World At The Brink

By Andrew Knox

For Professor Carl Livingston,

Political Science 101, 9:00AM

Winter Quarter 2010

Seattle Central Community College

Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

“[The countries of NATO] are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and

civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of

law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and

security” (Treaty 1).

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4th, 1949, in Washington, D.C., by dignitaries

from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the

Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg and Portugal. These first twelve countries were the founding

members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and they were later joined by Greece and Turkey in

1952 and West Germany in 1955 (“Transformed”). These fifteen member states belonged to NATO

during the most dangerous times in human history, the Cold War, in which the world teetered on a tight

rope suspended above anarchy and mutually assured destruction.

History

The Cold War was a thirty-five year period of global unease caused by perpetual tit-for-tat

aggression between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States and it's allies formed

NATO, and in response, the Soviet Union and it's allies signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation

and Mutual Assistance, better known as the Warsaw Pact. Colloquially, the member states of NATO

and the Warsaw Pact were the West and the East, respectively.

The Purpose of NATO

Most international organizations, most importantly the United Nations, take non-offensive,

2
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

neutral positions; they take stands for something. NATO is a unique international organization in that it

took a stand against something: the (aggression of the) Soviet Union. According to an article issued to

commemorate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO was founded with

three goals: “[1.] deterring Soviet expansionism, [2.]forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in

Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and [3.]encouraging European

political integration” (“60 Years”). These three goals were perhaps best expressed in the phrase "the

Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down" (Shukman).

It's first goal, “deterring Soviet expansionism,” was it's most visible one as well. NATO

organized military forces participated in the Korean War, and were the united defenses of Western

Europe in the possibility of an invasion or nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. By maintaining a steady

hand and a firm grip, NATO both fueled the Cold War and prevented a hot war from beginning,

straddling a nervous line between life and death. In the 1950's and 1960's, the United States and the

Soviet Union built up their reserves of nuclear weapons to the point where either side could eradicate

the entirety of human civilization many times over at their whim. A major selling point of NATO for

European nations afraid of Soviet invasion was it's promise of protection, the doctrine of collective

self-defense, codified in article five of the North Atlantic Treaty: “[Signatories of the treaty] agree that

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack

against them all and consequently they... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking... such

action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of

the North Atlantic area.”

The second goal was an implementation of the idiom, “those who forget history are doomed to

repeat it.” Twice in less than fifty years, Germany was the original belligerent in two global wars that

3
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

killed between 55 and 137 million people from violence, disease and starvation. After World War I, the

League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles, were put into place to prevent another Great War; but

the League of Nations faltered when the United States Congress failed to ratify the agreement,

removing a great deal of credibility, and the Treaty of Versailles proved to be worth less than the paper

it was printed on when brazen violations by the Nazi regime went unchecked by the world community.

Ultimately, World War II ended up being deadlier, due to vastly improved technologies and strategies in

killing people. After the war, the victors carved up the spoils, and East and West Germany were formed

as independent states, in the Soviet and American spheres of influence respectively. Through the

partitioning and military occupation of Germany, any dreams of Aryan conquest destiny died.

The third goal, European political integration, was achieved to an unprecedented degree. For

thousands of years, Europe was a collection of rival kingdoms with no singular tongue, fighting over

religion, taxes and territory; the only thing unifying them being a geographical abstraction, a tectonic

plate. With the formation of NATO, a number of European nations came together for a single cause,

even if that cause was antagonizing the other half of Europe. The seed of European unity that NATO

planted went on to sprout the European Union (“60 Years”).

Besides the Cold War

Most of the history of NATO is unavoidably tied to the story of the Cold War. The President of

France, Charles De Gaulle, took issue with American domination of the organization and promoted the

idea of independent European defenses. Therefore, France withdrew from the military elements of

NATO in 1967, staying on as a partial member. The NATO headquarters moved to Brussels, Belgium.

France has warmed up relations with NATO in recent years, but is not yet a full member again

4
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

(“Factbox”).

Since the fall of the Soviet Union and it's sphere of influence in the early 1990's, NATO has

been somewhat adrift, looking for a permanent cause to call home. NATO was involved in peace

keeping operations in the former Yugoslavia and is currently involved in support operation in

Afghanistan and the U.S. War on Terror. It has lent it's military capabilities to the United Nations in

genocide prevention and peace keeping operations.

Structure

The organizational structure of NATO can be divided into two sections, Civilian and Military.

However, there are some organizations and agencies that straddle the line between civilian and military,

forming a third category (“Structure”).

Civilian Structure

The NATO civilian apparatus is further divided into the offices of NATO headquarters in

Brussels, Belgium, the Permanent Representatives and National Delegations department and the

International Staff department (“Structure”). The Civilian Structure acts as somewhat of a shadow

United Nations, consolidating and unifying the diplomatic powers of the member states under one

banner as well as serving as a forum for the member states regarding NATO policy.

Much like the UN building in New York City, the NATO headquarters building is home to the

offices of international delegates as well as employees and bureaucrats of NATO. Around four

thousand people work in the building, which is in the northeast corner of Brussels. More than five

5
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

thousand formal and informal meetings between delegates happen in the building over a given year.

The NATO website plays up the importance of these meetings, and the discourse between delegations it

creates: “with permanent delegations of NATO members... there is ample opportunity for informal and

formal consultation on a continuous basis, a key part of the decision-making process at NATO.” The

Headquarters building is also the home of the North Atlantic Council, the top legislative policy body of

NATO (“NATO Headquarters”). The Secretary General of the NATO is the top administrator.

The National delegations to NATO are diplomatic delegations from member states consisting of

a country's ambassador or permanent representative and their administrative staff. The 28 current

members of NATO are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United

Kingdom, and the United States. All member states have a national delegation represented at NATO

headquarters (“National Delegations”).

The International Staff department is the broadest defined in the NATO website, containing

such sub-departments as the Private Office, the Public Diplomacy Division, the NATO Office of

Security, the Executive Management department, the Division of Political Affairs and Security Policy,

the Division of Operations, the Division of Defense Policy and Planning, the Division of Defense

Investment, the Office of Resources, the NATO Headquarters Consultation, Command and Control

Staff department, the Office of the Financial Controller, the Office of the Chairman of the Senior

Resource Board, the Office of the Chairman of the Civil and Military Budget Committees, the

International Board of Auditors for NATO and the NATO Production and Logistics Organizations

department (“Structure”). Simply put, the International Staff is the administrative apparatus of NATO

6
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

in the field. One can see that while this is the civilian wing of NATO, most of the departments are

focused on the administration of military efforts. This is because NATO maintains it's status as a

military collective organization, even if it no longer has an eternal adversary.

Military Structure

The military wing of NATO is the most visible, influential and important wing of NATO. The

military structure of NATO is divided into The Military Committee, the International Military Staff, the

Allied Command Operations, the Allied Command Transformation and Other NATO Command and

Staff Organizations (“Structure”).

The Military Committee is the top military decision making body of NATO; it is composed of

military representatives of each member state's military commander and recommends the military

actions it deems necessary to the North Atlantic Council for approval. The Military Council is both

subordinate and tightly bound to the decisions of the North Atlantic Council, since it “meets every

Thursday, following the regular Wednesday meeting of the [North Atlantic] Council, so that it can

follow up promptly on Council decisions” (Handbook Ch.11).

Much like the diplomatic delegations, the International Military Staff is composed of military

representatives (generals, admirals, officers, etc.) from each member state. In addition to forming the

membership of the Military Committee, they run sub-departments such as the Plans and Policy

Division, the Operations Division, the Intelligence Division, the Cooperation and Regional Security

Division, the Logistics, Armaments and Resources Division, the NATO Situation Center, the Financial

Controller, the NATO HQ Consultation, Control and Communications Staff, the Partner Country

Representation department, the NATO Training Group, the Committee on women in the NATO Forces

7
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

and the NATO Military Audiovisual Working Group (“Structure”).

The Allied Command Operations, or ACO, division is one of the two strategic military

commands under NATO, it is effectively a component of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe,

or SHAPE. SHAPE is headquartered separately from NATO, in Mons, Belgium. Out of the two

NATO strategic military commands, the ACO is the one with operational command over NATO forces

in theaters of war. The ACO's branches include two standing Joint Force Commands and six

subordinate Joint Force Component Commands. The ACO is headed by the Supreme Allied

Commander Europe, abbreviated as SACEUR, who is also commander of the US European Command,

which effectively gives the United States inherent military domination in NATO issues (“Allied

Command Operations”).

The Allied Operations Transformation, or ACT, is a separate strategic military command,

headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia. The main purpose of the ACT is transitioning the military structure

of NATO away from a Cold War mindset towards a leaner and meaner NATO military fully able to

assimilate and dominate any threat in the guerrilla warfare realities of the twenty-first century. It is

essentially the research and development wing of the NATO military, and does not manage any combat

operations (“Allied Command Transformation”).

The Other NATO Command and Staff Organizations section is separated only because the

groups within it did not match the criteria of any of the other military divisions, or are not subordinate

to any of the other military divisions. They include the Canada-US Regional Planning Group, the

NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force Command and the Combined Joint Planning Staff

(“Structure”).

8
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

Other Organizations and Agencies

There are many NATO entities that are not officially organized under the Civilian or Military

banners. These entities fall into the categories of Logistics, Production Logistics, Standardization,

Civil Emergency Planning, Air Traffic Management, Air Defense, Airborne Early Warning,

Communication and Information Systems, Electronic Warfare, Meteorology, Military Oceanography,

Research and Technology, Education and Training and Project Steering Committees/Project Offices

(“Structure”).

Criticism

Being an international military organization, criticism of NATO comes from many sides.

United States

Since the end of the Cold War, commentators in the United States have largely downplayed the

instability of Russia's foreign policy and, as such, have begun to feel that the necessity of NATO's

existence has passed. In this period of relative global peace and relaxation, some in the United States

Government have become anxious about losing political dominance in European and global affairs.

Because of this, American detractors of NATO take either an all or nothing approach. A leaked

Pentagon report from 1999 revealed the Government's fear of a politically independent, or even defiant,

Europe that would hijack NATO and disenfranchise the United States from it's previous role: “[the

U.S.] must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would

undermine NATO ... Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary

9
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation

in European security affairs” (Shah). Some journalists and pundits have even suggested that since

NATO no longer has a clear adversary, such as the Soviet Union, that it should be dissolved: “NATO

was created in the light of the Cold War and its mandate said that it will comply to the UN Charter.

However, as the Cold War has ended, the role for NATO has perhaps also ended” (Shah).

France

France has had a long and strained relationship with NATO. While they were a founding

member state, the President of France, Charles De Gaulle (a former French Resistance leader during

World War II), felt that the organization was held in a stranglehold by the United States, and while he

advocated for European political integration and military defense, he wanted it on European terms,

without influence or interference from the United States. The core tenet of an independent French

defense was the development of France's very own nuclear weapons. When France pulled out of the

NATO military structure in 1966, that forced the NATO headquarters, as well as American military

forces out of the country. That, however, was merely a protest, and not a complete rebuke of NATO's

ideals, France remained a political structure member and has maintained a strong alliance with the

United States and the rest of Western Europe. France has continued to promote a defense infrastructure

based on the European Union, without intercontinental influence (“Factbox”).

Russia

As NATO was formed to be deliberately belligerent to the Soviet Union, many in Russia feel

that NATO and the West still harbor an anti-Russian bias. After falling flat in the 1990's, Russia is

10
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

desperate to regain it's former status as a superpower, and has a habit of bullying it's smaller neighbors

that used to be part of the Soviet Union. The Russian Government has felt threatened in the past by

moves by Ukraine and Georgia to apply for NATO membership. While “NATO and Russia made a

reciprocal commitment to work together to build a stable, secure and undivided continent on the basis

of partnership and common interest” and formed a NATO-Russia Council, many Russians see it as a

one-sided council, since the NATO member states get 28 votes on the council and Russia only gets one

(“Frequently Asked”).

Involvement in Former Yugoslavia Crisis

Some criticize NATO's deployment in Yugoslavia, specifically in Kosovo and Bosnia-

Herzegovina, as hasty and ill-conceived, in the words of analyst Gar Lipow, “if a terrorist is holding

people hostage in the living room of a house and the police charge in wildly, they will be putting those

hostages at risk. Even more reckless would to charge into another room of the house (because it's safer:

there's no terrorist there) and start destroying things of value to the terrorist. Such a strategy would

seem ideally designed to put the hostages in the greatest possible danger. No one concerned about the

well-being of the hostages would behave in this way, but it is exactly the strategy followed by NATO”

(Shah, Kosovo).

Conclusion

While it's intentions are sometimes in question, NATO is fundamentally a positive force in the

world. Say what you will about any political or humanitarian malpractice, the democratic ideology that

11
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

NATO practices and promotes is far more conducive to human liberty than the “communist” alternative

offered by the Soviet Union. The fact that we, in the United States, maintain our freedoms, however

twisted and contorted, the fact that syntheses of these freedoms have been exported to Eastern Europe,

and even the fact that we still live and breathe today, are all beautiful alternatives to the other scenarios.

To give credit where credit is due, we owe NATO a tremendous debt.

12
Andrew Knox
Political Science – NATO
February 27, 2010

Work Cited

 "60 Years of NATO." NATO On-line Library. 2009. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/ebookshop/nato60/NATO60_en.pdf>.
 "Allied Command Operations." NATO. 28 Jan 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52091.htm>.
 "Allied Command Transformation." NATO. 28 Jan 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52092.htm>.
 "Chapter 11: Military Organisation and Structures: The Military Committee." NATO Handbook.
27 Aug 2001. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb1101.htm>.
 "Frequently Asked Questions." NATO. 21 Jan. 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/faq.htm#A8>.
 "National Delegations to NATO." NATO. 21 Jan 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49205.htm>.
 "NATO Headquarters." NATO. 21 Jan 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49284.htm>.
 "NATO Transformed." NATO On-line Library. 2004. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/docu/nato-trans/html_en/nato_trans01.html>.
 NATO. North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, D.C.: 1949.
 "Structure." NATO. 21 Jan 2010. NATO, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/structure.htm>.
 "Factbox - France's on-off relations with NATO." Reuters UK Jun 18 2008: 1Jun 18, 2008. Web.
28 Feb 2010. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1889688720080618>.
 Shah, Anup. "The Need for NATO." 19 Mar. 2001. Global Issues, Web. 28 Feb 2010.
<http://www.globalissues.org/article/125/the-need-for-nato>.
 Shukman, David. "Analysis: Key step in Nato's future." BBC News 12 May 2002: 1. Web. 28
Feb 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1980047.stm>.

13