NATO’s 70th Anniversary
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the longest standing military alliance in modern history. NATO’s past, for many, shapes the alliance’s reputation around the world. Trying to manage unpredictable political situations in the East European bloc, operations, such as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, and states’ conformity with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), are all examples of past issues that affect NATO today. Global generational change will not leave room for manoeuvre, and NATO’s long expired, simplified reasoning to justify its operations and modus operandi will not be adequate in a world that is constantly changing and evolving.
The future will bring up challenges that the past did not. Issues such as climate change, migration and integration, and cyber security, for instance, are now focal points in global governance and will stand as a test of NATO’s ambitions and capabilities alongside past issues such as nuclear arms control and the functioning of the arms industry in general. Stepping away from Cold War behaviour, NATO awaits challenges that will show how important and powerful international interdependencies can be in creating a win-win scenario for member and non-member states. In this article I will take a historical constructivist approach in order to highlight the importance of collective state security and to provide a lens for any liberal future suggestions or predictions for improving the understanding of NATO’s role in maintaining peace regionally and globally in the upcoming decades.
By Borjana Filipovska
Entering a new decade is both a reason for celebration and reflection. The upcoming decade will undoubtedly be a dynamic one for NATO, and the alliance must tread carefully. Tired approaches and perspectives on international organisations can dampen the future of international cooperation for generations to come. Therefore, the expectations for alliances such as NATO are high.
NATO has persisted as the longest standing military alliance in modern history. Since 1949, the Alliance has been able to adapt to political and military problems throughout different regions of the world. What holds an alliance or an organisation together, however, is more than sharing resources. NATO’s members share values and respect for the same ideals that lie at the core of NATO’s continued relevance in the international community. The norms that hold NATO together, now as a community of 29 member states, create a system that promises and delivers security and defence to member states. Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington concludes this by making a statement that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Unlike the UN Charter, which calls for individual and collective security defence in Article 51, NATO did not create an international or global, humanitarian character. Therefore, it is only natural that Russia, NATO’s primary concern from the beginning, as well as other non-member states, has had difficulty in understanding NATO’s motives and goals. Likewise, the alliance has been unsure of the motives and goals of others, particularly China. This creates a negative loop of distrust, which can have serious consequences for the peace and security of the world in the long term. The nuclear arms race between superpowers, for example, has created these dynamics in the international community and will continue to do so unless there is a slight shift in the way “security” is defined, especially after the disbanding of the INF treaty.
Modern societies need to assist with the greater challenges of today, such as climate change, the massive inflow of economic migrants and refugees, the rise of radical Islam, and cyber security. Together with the problematic relationship NATO has with Russia, these new challenges will bring up old problems within interstate relations. Stepping away from Cold War behaviour, NATO awaits challenges that will show how important and powerful international interdependences can be in creating a win-win scenario for member and non-member states.
In an interconnected world constantly faced with unpredictable change, security cannot be treated as a fixed issue. The separation of state affairs from regional or international affairs is futile, since a crisis in one region can have an impact on another region. Therefore, the actions of Europe affect the US, and vice versa, and the actions of Russia affect Europe and the US, and vice versa. This goes to prove how much our world has become interconnected, politically, socially, economically, and militarily. In an interconnected world it only makes sense that the threats form a connection, too, which can either cause more distrust in some issues or push for positive cooperation between states. While European states face similar issues within their own countries, there are a variety of fields in which countries must cooperate in order to find solutions.
NATO’s timely adaptability in an ambiguous security environment
One of NATO’s greatest strengths has been its ability to adapt to different security approaches throughout the transatlantic area. NATO has maintained its presence in many regions and slowly expanded to 29 members, with Montenegro joining the alliance in 2017. This group of states will likely soon be enriched with its 30th member, North Macedonia. NATO membership is a principle ambition of the Western Balkan countries, as well as Ukraine and Georgia, and is incorporated into their foreign policy objectives. In this sense, NATO membership is tightly linked with membership in the European Union. For Balkan states this means acceptance in a community of high politics and decision-making, which benefits the political infrastructure of these states and can help bring about positive changes in military advances, rule of law, respect for human rights, and maintaining peace and security in a region marked by ethnic violence in the past. For former Communist republics, NATO membership means acceptance in the Western political community. Furthermore, membership will provide much-needed liberal reform, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. This alone speaks of the attractiveness of such a community like NATO. Whether through its values, norms or modus operandi, NATO is an alliance that creates a system of mutual respect among states. It is this respect among members that has kept Europe safe for the past seven decades and has provided the ground for cooperation and development between member states and non-member states.
During the Cold War, NATO’s collective defence was formulated around the imminent threat posed by the Soviet Union. Following the Cold War, NATO had to adjust to the creation of new states in the Eastern bloc in the 1990s, making cooperative security the milestone of its functioning. This was confirmed with the inclusion of Russia within the Partnership for Peace framework. Since the new millennia began, NATO has been faced with its largest threat posed from terrorist organisations. The 9/11 attack brought about most of the controversies that still exist around NATO, since the alarming nature of the world back in 2001 forced NATO to concentrate its efforts on military missions, such as ISAF in Afghanistan, which was the first and only time NATO invoked Article 5. For this NATO was subjected to wide criticism that persists today. Yet, despite this, NATO’s mission remains intact. Since 2014, the alliance has once again been put in position to adapt its capabilities and goals as the creation of Ukraine crisis escalated NATO’s relations with Russia. This led NATO to refocus its efforts on stability missions and the danger of hybrid threats.
NATO’s difficulty and lack of strategy in dealing with the complexity and international dynamics brought about the Wales Summit in 2014, a strategic turning point for NATO. The Wales Summit represented a move away from expeditionary operations, such as the ones in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and allowed for a renewed focus on member states’ territories. This was accomplished through strengthened deterrence and defence (e.g., enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) and the Tailored Forward Presence) within NATO’s eastern and south-eastern borders. These decisions were the largest reinforcement of NATO’s role in the region concerning collective defence.
The Warsaw Summit followed two years later in 2016, where the alliance was once again confronted with critical decisions to be made with regard to NATO’s operations and efforts. The Warsaw Summit identified many challenges that needed to be addressed within a complex security environment in order to improve the security of member states. One of the main concerns addressed was projecting stability beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. With the establishment of the eFP in Poland and the Baltic States, and also the Tailored Forward Presence in Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey, a first line of defence was created with the intention to secure member states against Russian aggression. Cyberspace was brought to the table and was finally recognised as a special security domain in which confrontation is highly likely. Therefore, the basis for common, future terminology and principles was established, covering all areas of warfare, including cyber warfare.
Another crucial decision made in Warsaw was also the request to perform an assessment of the NATO Command Structure. The foundations were laid for NATO’s Response Force (NRF) structures, including the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) and NATO’s Readiness Initiative (NRI). The NRF showed political leaders’ determination to strengthen the military posture of the alliance. The VJTF is a highly developed joint force, which is supported by land, air, maritime, and Special Forces, providing assistance in securing the southern parts of NATO member territory. The Command Structure of NATO is what sets this alliance apart from other international organisations due to its permanence in command and control, defining the decision-making process from the highest level (heads of states and governments) to the tactical level, including troops on the ground, sea, and in the air.
A constructivist view
Member states in international organisations collectively find themselves building upon their shared identity in that organisation. Throughout history there is an evident pattern in which certain states behave; however, this pattern does not deny that there is still space for manoeuvre and new, unknown ways of approaching security. Identity, as the starting point for any state’s ambitions to join an international organisation, is a form of expressing a belonging and belief in certain principles. NATO provides just that for its members, as its Treaty preamble confirms to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law, to promote stability and well-being in the North-Atlantic area.” For constructivists, international relations are shaped by ideas that gain their meaning through social interaction between states at the international level[1]. These interactions primarily occur between individuals at the state level, i.e., heads of state, and reflect states’ interests, which are a product of member states’ shared identity, especially within an organisation such as NATO. Therefore, it is logical that this commonly shared identity can pave the way for positive cooperation between member and non-member states.
Another constructivist aspect to analyse members’ behaviour within NATO is through democratic norms, which help guide the same behaviour. Democracy, as a focal point in the criteria for membership, plays a connecting role. Democracy is a major part of the shared identity between members of NATO. Cooperation, as such, arises from uncertainty in the security dilemma between states, allowing for cooperation and peaceful resolution of conflicts to prevail. Members and even non-members are guided by these norms, keeping their behaviour in check and allowing for cooperation based on trust and respect. States’ abilities to adapt to multilateral decisions bring about mutual responsiveness among them, which is beneficial in the decision-making processes within such a military alliance. Realistically, the possibility for non-compliance with norms exists, but the will for multilateral cooperation should be the end goal within an international community like NATO. Norms create a strong organisation, while non-compliance results in less strength in operation. Non-compliance with NATO’s norms and principles can dampen the effects of consensus and compromise between states, which can start viewing themselves like enemies and not like allies.
The institutionalist perspective claims NATO operates as a security management institution, and as such is designed to address a variety of risks. This makes NATO more than just a military alliance, which in addition to dealing with external threats also handles issues of misunderstanding and mistrust among its members. However, this perspective does not offer further explanation on the processes applied by the alliance to form state identities, which produce norms supporting peace, cooperation, and progress[2]. Through a constructivist approach, the shifts of dynamics in world politics can be portrayed as states’ socialization within the structures of NATO. This leads to the creation of interstate relations within and outside of NATO, which are dynamic in nature. In this case, socialization is a process of admitting actors, as states, into a community with shared norms and rules, i.e., NATO. This kind of state socialization can be conceptualized as a process where NATO, as socializer, by selection affects certain changes in the identity and interest of states as actors[3].
The process of socialization can manifest in two dimensions. The first dimension is the dynamics of the process of socialization, meaning NATO’s mechanism and practises of new norms, and the conditions surrounding their operation. The second dimension represents the result of the socialization process itself, meaning the internalization of new norms within member states. In the process of defining a new polity, the idea of collective purpose among NATO members and potential ones can shape domestic politics (i.e., members share common package of norms of governance consistent with their domestic identity) and foreign politics (i.e., through national identification with other states and insertion in the international arena)[4].
The internalization of the recommended norms and rules is considered the result of successful socialization. The risk here lies in NATO being labelled solely as an initiator of Western reform without a concrete vision, while states can be caught in a critical cycle of reaping the benefits of the alliance while not practicing the prescribed norms. The transitions to liberal democracies for former Communist states in Central and Eastern Europe states serve as evidence of this claim. Any future suggestions or predictions for improving the understanding of NATO’s role and efforts in maintaining peace regionally and globally should be based on members’ common values and respect for norms.
Conclusion
NATO, as the guardian of transatlantic peace, has generally managed to keep the peace in regions salvaged socially, politically, and economically after the horrors of the Second World War. NATO’s approaches have not always been in agreement with states’ individual expectations of the alliance in the past, but there is no doubting the growing importance of the transatlantic alliance for the future. Faced with ever-changing, new challenges, NATO will again have to adapt to an uncertain future, overcoming past criticism and embracing a future that will secure a sustainable living for generations to come. History will not be gentle if the same mistakes continue to be made by the Alliance, namely Cold War ideologies and unrepaired trust between Russia and the United States.
In an era where both Russia and the US are losing credibility domestically and internationally due to their lack of transparency in migration agendas, mistreatment of human rights, and abandoning international law preventing nuclear arms race, NATO must come up stronger and more unified than ever. This will not be an easy task, since Europe has been facing its own issues such as mass flows of migrants, which only few countries are prepared to integrate, the issue of Brexit, the rise of populism, and the list goes on. Many of these issues can be triggers for further misunderstanding among member states; therefore, it is crucial that the international community finds common ground in these issues where an agreement can be reached. Climate change, as an example, serves as a major unpredictable security threat, on the one hand; but on the other, it can play a role in unifying states’ efforts and resources toward international cooperation and the common good. States can find vast room for cooperation if they put aside geopolitics as the dominant factor dictating relations between them. This is an area where even the US and Russia as partners can achieve unimaginable results. The reality of Europe today speaks also of the thousands of migrants and refugees desperately seeking protection and a chance for integration within NATO member societies. Europe will continue to witness the many faces of migration, which besides culturally enriching our societies can increase the chance of radicalisation. The way migration and the refugee crisis is being approached right now is cautious and distant, stirring impatience among EU nationals and among refugees and migrants.
The generations to come will have high expectations concerning the way these issues are handled. These issues will persist and thus demand more long-term solutions rather than the same bipolar blame shifting and the classic intensifying of the arms control race, which includes a new way of control of nuclear weapons between Russia and the US, post-INF. Finding spheres of common interest and benefit, superpowers can change the dynamics in the international community, creating a new, positive, and productive discourse. This discourse can interlink NATO’s past and future, where there will be less space for individual leaders’ scepticism and distrust, and more space for global cooperation in fields that concern all states and all citizens of the planet. NATO, as not merely a military alliance but also a political one, has the unique opportunity to be a flexible enabler of such discourse in the future.
About the Author
Borjana Filipovska is a student from North Macedonia studying international relations at the Faculty for Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Currently, she is doing a paid internship at the Slovenian Migration Institute, a part of the Slovenian Academy for Arts and Sciences, where she works on different EU-financed projects dealing with emancipation and integration of migrants and refugees in Europe. She previously obtained a diploma from the European Academy of Diplomacy in Warsaw, Poland, in Advanced Diplomatic Skills and Foreign Policy. She also completed an internship with the Institute for Middle Eastern and Balkan Studies in Ljubljana, through which she received the Life Learning Academia Reference Award for her research paper on the political crisis in North Macedonia in 2016. Last year, she participated at the NATO-organised BALKAN SAYS youth seminar in Ljubljana.
Notes
[1] Mark Webber, “Thinking NATO through Theoretically”, Loughborough University, 2009, page 20.
[2] Alexandra Gheciu, “Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the ‘New Europe’”, International Organization 59, no. 4 (2005): 973–1012; also published by Cambridge University Press, see page 275.
[3] Ibid., 276.
[4] Ibid., 277.
