NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)

Tomáš Čižik - Peter Novák

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a political and military

organization originally constituted of twelve members from Europe and
Northern America, with Washington Treaty as its cornerstone. The Treaty
was signed by the founding members and contains of 14 Articles, where
the main principles of the organization are listed. NATO was established as
an organization of collective defence against the rising power of the Soviet
Union. As Western European countries felt threatened by the Soviet Union´s
conventional capabilities, they asked the United States to maintain its political
and military presence in Europe beyond the end of Second World War. The
result of the negotiations between the United States and the European countries
was the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on April 4, 1949.
NATO was the only multinational organization which institutionally bound
the USA to the European security also with concrete security guarantees.
“The Alliance was so successful as a deterrent that it never resorted to
Article 5 or deployed the substantial military forces under its umbrella
during the Cold War” (Lindley-French, 2007). NATO since its establishment
had to undergo many changes and face many challenges. The dissolution of
the Soviet Union led to the “reassessment” of the role of the Alliance. As
Lindley-French argues, it was important to keep the United States and non-
European members (Canada) engaged in Europe. Another breaking point in
NATO’s development were the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In order to adapt to the
new security challenges, NATO has broadened its mission, reformed all its
structures, established new partnerships, and developed new tools to achieve
its strategic goals (Ondrejcsák and Rhodes, 2014). At the time of this writing
(2014), NATO is facing another breaking point, the Ukrainian Crisis or
Russian-Ukrainian War. Currently, NATO consists of 28 member states and
is the most powerful regional military and political organization in the world.

85
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

NATO’S PRINCIPLES

North Atlantic Alliance is based on collective defence and mutual assistance

among the member states. The collective defence is considered as a main
principle or cornerstone of the Alliance. The right to self-defence is considered
as a basic right of each state and is enshrined in the Article 51 of the Charter
of the United Nation (1945): “nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack
occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect
the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present
Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security.”

If an armed attack occurs against one of the NATO member states, each
member state will consider this as an act of violence against all member
states and consider if they will take the actions necessary to help the attacked
member states. Here is important to state that each member state of the Alliance
should build and possess its own defence capacities against the aggression.
Collective defence of NATO member countries is enshrined in the Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty. As Bátor (2013: 105) states: “the Treaty commits each
member to share the risk, responsibility and benefits of collective security. It
also states that NATO members form a unique community of values committed
to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule
of law.” Article 5 was invoked only once, on 12th September 2001 after the
terrorist attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Council “decided
unanimously to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, saying that the
attack on 9/11 was not just an attack on the United States, but an attack on all
the members of NATO” (Daadler, 2011).

86
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

Besides the collective defence, NATO serves also as a place for discussion
about political and military issues or threats under the Article 4. Article 4
allows each member state to consult mostly political issues with its partners.
Bátor (2013: 106) argues that Article 4 “gives NATO its political dimension
and also because of this principle NATO is characterized as a political-
military organization.”

After the end of the Cold War the security situation in Europe has changed
and therefore NATO made some necessary steps in order to ensure its further
develop and to accommodate the newly arisen situation. There were three
main changes in European security: first, the dissolution of the Soviet Union
practically temporarily diminished the conventional threat it constituted for
the Western Europe; second, the former Soviet satellites in the Baltic Region
and Central and Eastern Europe have started on their incremental transition
to democratic countries and integration into European and NATO structures.
Third, the emerging security challenges outside the territory of NATO became
considered a threat for the Alliance’s members (Carpenter, 2013).

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATO

The development of the Alliance can be fully understood only after the analysis
of its history. The historical development of NATO can be divided into the
following four periods (with certain level of methodological simplifications
for the aims of this publication) – Cold War period (1949-1989), Post-Cold
War period (1989-2001), Post-9/11 period (2001-2014) and Post-Ukrainian
Crisis/Russian-Ukrainian War period (2014-ongoing).

Cold War Period (1949-1989)

The Cold War period can be characterized as a permanent competition
between the West and East blocs, or between the United States and its allies,
and the Soviet Union and its satellite states. As Eichler and Laml (2010:
23) argue, the creation of NATO can be best characterized as the “strategic

87
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

revolution,” because Western European countries openly admitted that they

were unable to protect themselves in the case of strategic Soviet attack on
Western Europe. It is important to say that during the Cold War, there was no
direct confrontation between the main actors, the United States and the Soviet
Union. All confrontations took place as proxy-wars (Korean War, Vietnam
War, etc.). NATO successfully fulfilled its role, in deterring the Soviet Union
from open confrontation with the West.

The Cold War period can be divided into the following 3 areas: first - military
competition and nuclear deterrence. According to Rearden (1984: 5), at the
start of the Cold War the army of the Soviet Union’s Red Army, excluding
its satellite states, “consisted of 4, 100, 000 men and had stabilized at about
175 line divisions, all effectively organized for combat and supported by
substantial tactical air force” all of which could be used in the armed attack
against Western Europe. On the other side, the advantage of conventional
forces of the Soviet Union over the West was balanced by the nuclear
deterrence capabilities of the United States. This competition created the
security dilemma. It “refers to a situation in which actions by a state intended
to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength or making
alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing
increased tensions that create conflict, even when no side really desires it”
(Jervis, 1978: 167-174). The tactics of both actors were aimed at deterring the
other side from armed attack.

Second - the Cold War represented the ideological confrontation between the
Western and Eastern bloc or between democratic values and communism.
The Western bloc promoted free trade, human rights, democracy and freedom
of speech, while the Eastern bloc promoted centrally planned economy,
collective ownership, and the rule of one party. In addition, the media in the
Easter bloc were under strong censorship.

88
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

Third - economic isolation. The Cold War period is also characterized by the
economic isolation of the Western and Eastern bloc. Each bloc tried to weaken
its opponent by economic sanctions and to support their allies or satellite
states. The United States has supported the Western European countries by
the so-called Marshall Plan aimed at helping Europe to recover after the
devastation of World War II, to improve European industry and to strengthen
its economies. The Soviet alternative to the Marshal Plan, the “Molotov Plan”
later known as COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Development)
was aimed at rebuilding the countries in the Easter bloc. However, the real
goal of COMECON was to prevent Soviet satellite states from looking for
help or moving towards the Western Europe. Stalin was “anxious to keep
other powers out of neighboring buffer states rather than to integrate them
into a new mammoth economy” (Wallace and Clark, 1986).

Post-Cold War Period (1989-2001)

The Soviet Union had dissolved in 1991 and soon afterwards NATO lost its
main conventional enemy and strategic opponent. Therefore, NATO aimed
its activities at cooperation with the former Soviet Union satellite states
and their integration into the organization as well as into other international
organizations, such as the European Union, as well as to widening the zone
of security and stability in Europe. The main change in this period was the
shift from the strictly defined territorial defence to the defence of the security
interests of the Alliance. As US Senator Lugar stated in 1993, NATO has to
“go out of area or out of business” (Good, 2012).

Without the main military and political opponent NATO was able to redefine
the notion of security, by shifting its focus to new threats in international
security, such as terrorism, the proliferation weapons of mass destruction,
failed and rogue states. This meant that NATO was prepared, besides the
territorial defence of its member states, to engage in crisis management
operations outside its own borders to prevent rising threats to the Alliance.
In this period NATO engaged in missions outside its borders – for example

89
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

through the Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995,

Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, followed by
air campaign in Kosovo and Serbia (1999), followed still by KFOR and many
other missions.

Post-9/11 Period (2001-2014)

After the 9/11, the threat of terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, rogue states and failed states became the top discussed issues
in the majority of states and international organizations of the trans-Atlantic
space. 9/11 attacks gave the impulse for the next round of post-Cold-War
transformation of NATO.

The main transformation in this period was that NATO has re-focused its
attention to “active engagement in operations out of area of the Alliance
(outside the European territory). Majority of NATO member states adapted
their capabilities for the crisis management operations (Korba and Majer, n.d.).

Furthermore, NATO shifted its efforts from the relative short air operations to
the long-term ground offensives far away from its territory. The relative secure
environment in Europe allowed these strategic changes, because NATO states
had lost a big military opponent in their neighbourhood, although the main
threat to the Alliance at that time came from Afghanistan and the broader
Middle East. To be successful in foreign operations NATO “needed to reform
itself.” The Alliance needed to “strengthen its operation capabilities” (Bátor,
2013). Foreign operations also contributed to better interoperability between
member states, who have sought more effective cooperation.

The best example of NATO long-term operation out of Europe was the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan launched
on the basis of Resolution 1386 of the United Nations Security Council in
December 2001 (United Nations Security Council, 2001). Initially, the ISAF
mission was to punish Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks and to defeat the Taliban

90
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

regime in Afghanistan. Later, the mission changed to securing Kabul and

its surroundings from Al-Qaeda and Taliban. In 2003, “NATO took over the
operation from the UN (upon the request of the government of Afghanistan)”
and the ISAF mission had expanded through all the territory of Afghanistan
(Majer, 2013). The main goal of the ISAF mission was to train and develop
the Afghan National Security Forces to be able to provide security across
the territory of Afghanistan, “to ensure that Afghanistan can never again
become a haven for terrorists” (Bátor, 2013). In Afghanistan the allied forces
were also involved in the counterinsurgency missions which called on NATO
to develop the capabilities to be able to project force and equipment to the
state far away from Alliance territory. According to NATO sources (2014),
48 nations had contributed to the ISAF mission with 34, 512 troops in 2014,
but more than 100 thousand at its peak, just a few years before. Among top
contributors were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy,
Georgia, Jordan, Turkey and Australia.

Post-Ukrainian Crisis/Russian-Ukrainian War Period (2014-ongoing)

The current crisis in the Eastern Europe (2014-ongoing) can be characterized
as the fourth and the most recent period of NATO’s development. According
to Ondrejcsák (2014) there are three main changes in this period from the
previous one. First, the Russian aggression against the Ukrainian territory and
the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula showed that Russia is still a security
threat for Europe and for the Alliance. Second, NATO member states were
unable to effectively react to this situation, and there was not set, so-called,
effective “red line” at the first phase of the Russian invasion. Third, most
of the NATO member states lacked sufficient military capabilities to defend
their own territories, and Central Europe was missing strategic infrastructure.
The perception of relative security in Europe and absence of strong military
opponent near the borders of the Alliance affected the military spending of
most NATO member states. According to SIPRI (2013), in majority of states
the defence budgets were decreasing. In fact, the Alliance was unprepared
for the aggression from the Russian side. In 2010 at the Lisbon Summit, the

91
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

new Strategic Concept (Swami, 2010) was approved, where it was literally
stated that “conventional military attack against NATO territory is low.” This
has proven as false and Alliance had to take measures to reverse this negative
trend and to strengthen its own security.

First − majority of the member countries promised to increase defense

spending.. Many NATO members announced, even before the NATO Summit,
that they will spend more on defence to secure the territory of Alliance against
Russia. According to Croft (2014), “Poland aims to increase the defence
spending to the 2% by the year 2016. Latvia and Lithuania have pledged
to reach the 2 percent target by the year 2020. Romania has promised to
increase its defence spending gradually until 2016. Czech government has
said it aims to reverse the trend of declining defence spending.”

Second− building of the new strategic military infrastructure in Central Europe

and Baltic states (military and logistical bases, joint military exercises). The
joint military exercises should, according to Ondrejcsák and Rhodes (2014),
strengthen the interoperability of the armed forces of the NATO member
states, which will be a crucial challenge for members after the end of the
current ISAF mission in Afghanistan, which improved the Allies’ armed
forces ability to act and fight together significantly to unprecedented level.
As an example of the joint military exercise, we can mention the international
exercise Ground Pepper, which took place in the training area of the military
base Lešť in Slovakia. The aim of this exercise was to “strengthen the
interoperability of the armies, which is one of the most important goals for
the Alliance after the Wales Summit” (Maxim, 2014).

Third – strengthening of the military presence of the Alliance forces on the

territory of its eastern members. The Wales Summit Declaration (2014) stated
that the measures to strengthen the security of the Alliance will include the
“continuous air, land, and maritime presence and meaningful military activity
in the eastern part of the Alliance, both on a rotational basis. They will provide

92
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

the fundamental baseline requirement for assurance and deterrence, and are
flexible and scalable in response to the evolving security situation.” Some of
these measures were already taken, for example, the “deployment in March
and April of an additional six F-15 fighter jets to the Baltic Air Policing
mission; deployment in March of an aviation detachment of 12 F-16s and
300 personnel to Lask Air Base in Poland; deployment of 175 marines to
Romania to supplement the Black Sea rotational force, [...], and deployment
of 150 paratroopers each to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia” (Belkin,
2014).

Fourth – the creation of the NATO Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
where NATO member states commit to enhance the NATO Response Forces
“by developing force packages that are able to move rapidly and respond to
potential challenges and threats.” The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force
(VJTF) “will be able to deploy within a few days to respond to challenges
that arise, particularly at the periphery of NATO’s periphery” (Wales Summit
Declaration 2014). It is part of the new Readiness Action Plan, which is aimed
at strengthening the collective defence of its states.

Fifth – the need for the stronger partnership with states outside of the Alliance.
According to Ondrejcsák (2014), NATO “should strengthen the existing
partnerships, start to develop the new ones from Moldavia to Central Asia
and to re-launch the enlargement process.”

Wales Summit (2014) also noted that NATO’s doors will stay open “to
all European democracies, which share the values of our Alliance, which
are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of
membership…”NATO member countries also have endorsed the package
for Georgia that includes “defence capability building, training, exercises,
strengthened liaison, and enhanced interoperability opportunities.”

93
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

NEW SECURITY THREATS FOR THE ALLIANCE

Alongside the security threats such as – terrorism, proliferation of weapons

of mass destruction, cyber defence and energy security is NATO facing the
security threat right in its neighbourhood in Ukraine. The Russian “invasion of
Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula changed not only the
previous political realities of Eastern Europe, but also the strategic balance
that had been there since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the
Soviet Union” (Ondrejcsák, 2014). Ondrejcsák further argues that there are
three main areas that Russian invasion to Ukraine has changed: “the territorial
integrity of Ukraine that is considered crucial for the strategic independence
of Central Europe; the Russian armed forces will approach Central Europe,
mainly due to future Russian air bases in the Crimea; and that the war is no
longer “taboo” for Russian foreign policy in enforcing its the power interests
in Europe.” Andrzej Karkoszka, former Deputy Minister of National Defence
in Poland, said in his speech at the international conference NATO 2020:
Alliance Renewed (2014) that “Russia is using Russian minorities as tools
of influence. We are seeing very visible military build-up in Russia, which is
trying to reinstate itself as a superpower.”

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

NATO 2012 Chicago Summit emphasized that “proliferation threatens our
shared vision of creating conditions necessary for a world without nuclear
weapons in accordance with the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).” The main tools used by NATO to prevent the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction are arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, but
NATO uses also all conventional measures to prevent the proliferation of
the weapons of mass destruction, such as The Weapons of Mass Destruction
Non-Proliferation Centre; Combined Joint CBRN (chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear) Defence Task Force; Joint Centre of Excellence on
CBRN Defence; standardization, training, research and development of the
necessary capabilities; or the improvement of civil preparedness. However,

94
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

NATO contribution is strengthened by the cooperation with other states

or international organizations. “NATO is committed to conventional arms
control, which provides predictability, transparency, and keeps armaments at
the lowest possible level” (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2014).

Cyber defence
Cyber attacks are the new phenomena in security. The 2014 Wales Summit
incorporated cyber attacks to the Article 5 of Washington Treaty, but every
cyber attack on the NATO member state will be considered individually. Cyber
attacks have a potential to pose threats at strategic level and seriously affect
both civilian and military infrastructure. Wales Summit established cyber
security as “a part of the Alliance’s core task of collective defence.” NATO
has an ambition to develop the capabilities to build effective defence against
cyber attacks and to share these capabilities with other NATO member states.
In addition, the Alliance has developed NATO Computer Incident Response
Capability (NCIRC), which “protects NATO’s own networks by providing
centralised and round-the-clock cyber defence support to the various NATO
sites. This capability is expected to evolve on a continual basis, to maintain
pace with the rapidly changing threat and technology environment” (North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2014).

Energy security
Energy security was introduced to NATO‘s agenda at the Riga Summit in
2006, recognized as a key element of Alliance’s security. “[T]he disruption
of the flow of vital resources could affect Alliance security interests” (NATO
Multimedia Library, n.d.). There were 5 key areas identified, where NATO
can provide added value – information and intelligence fusion and sharing;
projecting stability; advancing international and regional cooperation;
supporting consequence management; and supporting the protection of critical
infrastructure. In addition, NATO commits itself in Strategic Concept 2010 to
“develop the capacity to contribute to energy security, including protection of
critical infrastructure and transit areas and lines, cooperation with partners,

95
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (NATO)
4

and consultations among Allies on the basis of strategic assessments and

contingency planning.” Energy security can be interpreted in two ways. First,
it is the energy security of each member state of the Alliance. And second, it
is the energy security of the forces on the battlefield, where they need enough
energy to secure their basic needs for successful combat operations (Bátor,
2013).

NATO ENLARGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIP POLICY

Currently, we can define several categories of NATO partnership policies.

The first category represents relations with states with NATO membership
aspirations (Georgia, for example). To second category encompasses relations
with European states without NATO membership aspirations (Austria,
Switzerland, Sweden, Finland), while the third category represents NATO
global partnerships, which can be sub-divided into individual partnerships
with important international actors like Australia, New Zealand, South
Korea and Japan and relations with the states within the NATO institutional
framework (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, Mediterranean Dialogue and
Euro- Atlantic Partnership Council).

Partnership for Peace Programme

Despite some of its shortfalls and limited flexibility to adapt to the current
situation, The Partnership for Peace programme is still the most important
institutional cooperation framework for the Alliance. The role of PfP was also
enhanced at the recent Wales Summit: “Partnership for Peace and Euro-
Atlantic Partnership Council are, and will continue to be, a part of our vision
of a Europe whole, free, and at peace” (Wales Summit Declaration, 2014,
par. 82). In general, one can describe PfP as tool of practical and pragmatic
cooperation between NATO and partner states. The PfP allows participating
country to choose own priorities of cooperation with NATO (Partnership for
Peace Programme, 2014). The programme was launched in 1994.

96