Nato case essay

Apparently, the Soviet Union was making significant moves into Europe, the more reason the capitalist wets had to be jittery. In that vein, NATO was born to impede the influence of the Soviet Union into Europe. As demonstration of the ambition to make its military presence and might in Europe the Soviet had erected numerous satellites in a number of countries in Eastern and Central Europe.

Far from that, the Soviet had even begun its march to the West Berlin in June 1948. This was reason enough for the countries of Western Europe to be alarmed, together with the United States and Canada: countries that embraced capitalism and sought to make it as the world’s economic and political order. This threat came out jarringly clear when the Soviet Union went ahead and made political and territorial demand on Turkey and Norway.

The DC-6 gave the United States the prerogative in planning and the preparation of strategic bombing. It also gave the United States and the United Kingdom the joint responsibility for organization and control of ocean lines of communication. On the other hand it gave the responsibility to provide military troupes and the bulk of the tactical air support and air defense. In this way, the great power, the United States extended protection to lesser powers according to their strategic location: for protection and money, the United States expected troupes. (Kaplan, American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance, 53).

In 1954, the NATO council adopted a new strategic concept which was embodied in Military Committee Paper Number 48, otherwise known as MC-48. The new strategy took the United States to the task of defending the client states’ frontiers with its own forces at any cost. Apart from that the strategy implied that the United States would assume the responsibility for the implementation of that strategy because it was assumed that at that moment the numerical superiority of the Eastern bloc was to be offset by Western nuclear weapons. (Kaplan, American Historians and the Atlantic Alliance, 53). Sandler and Hartley also allude to the fact that NATO has remained a viable institution since its formation.

The NATO intervention made the Gulf War possible and the subsequent defeat of Iraq in the war was a precursor to the end of the cold war. (Kaplan, NATO Divided, NATO United, 110)To add on the NATO provided a forum where the members were allies sharing a common interest in peace and international stability and also created healthy rivalry between the allies who sought to limit their share of collective burden in order to free resources with which to satisfy the many and varied demands made of domestic welfare states. Consequently, they sought both the vigorous collective action on behalf of interests held in common and a systematic sharing of burdens and responsibilities. (Thies, Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden- Shifting in NATO (2002), 262)NATO’s Composition and Expansion.

The question of NATO’s expansion is today a moot point, since the organization itself is argued as to have outlived its own purpose. Many arguments have come up either for and against the organization’s expansion and sustainability. On one hand a particular group of analysts posited that NATO’ expansion is worthwhile since it presents the potential of fostering collective defense capabilities; it also works to improve the military and economic burden sharing amongst the member states, imposing affordable costs. In addition, NATO’s expansion helps not only to spread but also bolster the democratic ideology in Europe; this in turn brings about both political and economical stability and adapts the NATO states to post-cold war environment. In contrast, another school of thought argued that NATO’s expansion would isolate Russia. The back side of this would be that the cohesiveness of NATO states would be limited. Besides, the treaties formulated and ratified before, with the aim of reducing arms would in the long run be in danger: there would emerge the likelihood of the signatory countries to go back to their promises because their safety would have been jeopardized in the first place.

This began with countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland being the target; then the efforts would be to reach out all the countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This would help to build a new cooperative relationship with Russia, the organization’s prior adversary. (Asmus, Opening NATO’S Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era, 18)This expansion, Asmus points out, demonstrated the fact that the organization was adapting to the new changes that the changing times warranted. Eventually, the organization that was initially created between North America and Western Europe to keep the Soviet Union in check, NATO was going through a metamorphosis into a formidable body that was committed to building an undivided, democratic and secure Europe and protecting its member countries from the new threats of the post cold war era. (19)But before this massive expansion could be put on track, the NATO allies up dated its mission allowing it to accommodate of the European continent as a whole together with the need to address the new threats that could come from countries beyond the borders of the member states. After that was achieved, the process of enlarging NATO’s membership and mission culminated at the organization’s fiftieth anniversary summit in the spring of 1999. (19)Then in March that very year, the former Warsaw Pact countries, for instance the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary found their way into the organization. However, recasting NATO involved major and even dramatic fights and negotiations with Russians, European allies and within the United States where it brought forth a fierce debate on what the organization was standing for in that era of post cold war.

(Asmus, Opening NATO’S Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era, 19)The Relevance of NATO TodayThe threat to the security of European nations did not end with the demise of the cold war. Even up to date, the West is still facing hostility from modern terrorism, which has emerged as a subtle super power in itself. Some of the new or rather remaining threats to the NATO allies after the end of the cold war are military in nature: they include local strife in the NATO allies, civil wars and internal violence in general.

It is thus important to note that the same kind of unity amongst nations, which worked to effectively relegate socialism to the periphery and give victory to the allied states of NATO; such unity is still needed counter the enemy of today’s capitalism. All countries that enjoy the stability that come with capitalism have a duty of defending capitalism against any aggression. Therefore, should the countries allied to NATO set out to dismantle the organization; such a move would only jeopardize the security and welfare of the West but also the world at large. ReferencesSandler and Hartley, NATO Burden Sharing and Related Issues, The Political of Economy NATO, 24, 25. Kaplan, American Historians and the Atlantic Aliance, 53. Smith, NATO in the First Decade After the Cold War, NATO and Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War, 25Kaplan, NATO Divided, NATO United, 110)Thies, (2002), Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden- Shifting in NATO, 262)Sandler and Hartley, The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present, and Into the 21ST Century, 58. Asmus, Opening NATO’S Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era, 18. Dutkiewiez and Jackson, NATO Looks East, 16.