More handpicked essays just for you.
What led to the creation of NATO
North atlantic treaty organization a short history of nato
Emergence of NATO
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
NATO is a very controversial topic that should not be taken lightly. Many stand for it but there are also many against it. The organization started so that the Western European countries could ally with the U.S. for peace. It was mainly to do big decision making together. At times, NATO has fallen, and at times, it has risen above. Should people rely on NATO, or should they rally against NATO? For better understanding, NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, another name for it is Atlantic Alliance. It is an association of European and North American states that formed in 1949. It started for the defense of Europe and the North Atlantic against the detected threat of Soviet aggression. NATO’s headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium. The work of NATO’s missions are supported by …show more content…
its staff and military staff which are at the headquarters. At the time, in 1949, NATO’s founding members included: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, The United Kingdom, and the United States. There are now 28 members total. These are the ones that joined in later: Greece, Turkey, Germany, Spain, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, and Croatia. Also, according to Article 10 of the Atlantic Alliance, it states that membership is open to any “European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic Area.” All decisions about joining the alliance must go through the North Atlantic Council. Presently, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Georgia, and Montenegro are all trying or in the process of joining. Furthermore, The Soviet Union was always a big part of NATO. There have been many times when the Russians were planning to take the organization down. One time, in the late 40’s, the Soviets tried to join NATO just so they could take them down from the inside. Since the collapse of the USSR, NATO has sought cooperation with Russia and the communist nations of East Europe. Comparatively, in 1995, NATO took its first aggressive action when it intervened in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, bombing Serb positions around the besieged city of Sarajevo. This incident developed into a peacekeeping operation that lasted until 2004. In 1999, it bombed Serbia in an attempt to end its policy of genocide in Kosovo. These instances were just the first examples of NATO’s aggressive attempts. Now, there are many reasons as to why people are for NATO. “The programs main strategic concepts are nation building, cyber war, climate change, and humanitarian operations.” (Abrahamson) They gave up on secondary activities in order to focus on the essentials. A pro for NATO’s strategies is that it often was able to change from wanting massive retaliation to a concept of flexible response. Not to mention, NATO’s allies were never quick to disperse the organizational structures that had proved to be so “helpful in building commonality of effort and purpose, created over years of discussions, and in deepening relationships, mutual trust, and information sharing.” (Collins) NATO created a working, organizational structure, a decision making process, and a defense planning process. In like manner, NATO has done major decision making and negotiations over the years. The organization negotiated an “arms control agreement with the Soviet Union to eliminate all intermediate-range nuclear missiles” from Europe. (Collins) NATO has also been key in some efforts for the UN to being available as an “action agent” for resolutions. (Jones) Additionally, NATO has remained powerful at many times. An example of this being that in the beginning, Europeans had little interest in the matching of conventional forces. Soon after, however, gave in believing NATO to be a deterrent with intimidation which did work for a while. The Europeans didn’t “buy it” at first because “We look more than a bit silly urging NATO member to do more when every USG fiscal budgeting projection predicts major defense reductions.” (Jones) Likewise, NATO has proved itself to be a valuable device for “rallying willing coalitions for expeditionary action outside the NATO area.” (Jones) Some examples of this being little programs such as OECD. OECD stands for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. There is the Nuclear Planning Group, pretty self-explanatory. Then the Nuclear Defense Affairs Committee. The NDAC “decide issues of the storage of warheads, the placement of missiles in Europe, or the tactical use of battlefield nuclear weapons.” (Watts) In another viewpoint, decision making has a downside. NATO’s decision making has become “more difficult and less expeditious as time goes on.” (Abrahamson) Another disadvantage is that the NATO countries usually give the minimum amount of money towards their alliance decision. The United States gives the most which is one of the reasons that they’re in debt. Another problem is that NATO provides very little guidance on how the members are “supposed to situate the organizations’ administrative structures.” (Collins) They seem to be fine from the outside, but sources state that they do seem to be a little bit unorganized, or relaxed. Most of NATO’s organizational structure is handled by the Military Committee. This explains why they are a little laid back, they are busy with more important issues. Even though, NATO was originally supposed to work as “a strategy for military security” but has become insufficient for more compound issues. (Watts) NATO tried to spread peace, and not war and mistrust in the world. Unfortunately, the organization has an increasing inability to either act or speak in a united voice on several key issues. They cannot agree on global events, and economic and political solidarity. After all, there have been many challenges and incidents within the NATO compound. They have faced many of these challenges, without and within, which threatened its effectiveness as a unified and common defense organization. Also, the significant incidents at NATO have “cast serious doubt on whether or not its countries share a similar political vision of the world.” (Watts) A few examples of these political crises are the Suez expedition, France’s rejection of Algeria’s independency supports, and especially the Big 3. The Big 3 is made up of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. The main incident with the Big 3, which is the most significant of the three incidents revolved around secrets. This was mainly about how German had secret surrender agreements with the U.S. The Soviets got jealous and tried to make a pact with Germany which fell through. With this in mind, I believe that people should support NATO. One of the main reasons for this is due to the defense programs. To elaborate, the Nuclear Defense Affairs Committee, mentioned earlier, was a forum created in 1966 in which the nations could discuss any nuclear issues that face NATO. The organization was meant for countries all over the world to be able to agree and make changes regarding defensive issues. They wanted to create peace, they did not want to have wars. The other, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, was created in the 1960’s for countries all over the world to coalesce for economic decisions. Once again, NATO wanted to create peace within the world, the program wanted to unite people from all over, with different backgrounds. Another reason why people should support NATO is because the organization has “always been able to push reinforcements quickly.” (Collins) Whenever there has been a problem, whether it was a huge issue or a little snake in the pathway blocking an exit, NATO was on top of it.
There has never been any doubt as to if NATO is competent enough for these problems. Moreover, there are also many benefits to NATO’s future. It has been said that NATO will try to enlarge their program and spread into Russia. If Russia could get on board with NATO and peace for the world, most problems will be solved. The true question with this though is: can Russia be trusted? Hopefully so in order for the problems to be solved. I personally support NATO because they allow anyone to join, and honestly want everyone to join. They are going for world peace and not more world wars. There has been a lot of bloodshed and without NATO, there would be innocent lives lost and too much evil in this world. NATO is here to protect, not to reject. NATO has had some down falls but overall has stuck together and tried to work through the problems. This is why people should support the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The author doesn’t forget to mention the relationship between USA and NATO. He thinks that Americans welcome NATO as a weapon for America’s affairs, not of the world’s. In his final words, it is suggested that either Europe should invite USA to leave NATO or Europe should expel America from it.
Canada was influential in the development of NATO; it had been a member of NATO since it was founded in 1949. The purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was to unify the western allies and strengthen the military as a reaction to a possible threat from the Soviet Union and its allies. In 1949 many countries signed a contract to be part of the organization including: Belgium, Great Britain, Italy, Iceland, Luxembourg, United States, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Portugal.² Canada gained benefits from being part of NATO such as the ability to have a say in alliance policy, and now Canada would be able to “deal with the US on a multilateral context.” ¹ NATO also provided safety for Canada from the potential aggression of the Soviet Union. Canada’s armed forces were the most engaged, and active responsive armed forces within NATO. Canada’s priority in NATO was to ensure that all allies remain modern and are able to face the threats during the time period.
...r responsibility in addressing its alliances and protecting the flow of energy resources in the European region. Use of force through NATO in Crimea is also not likely as the increased escalation of force or war is not worth risking lives in order to uphold the image of sovereignty of a non-NATO country.
At the NATO Prague Summit of 21-22 November 2002, member nations agreed to make changes to ensure that the alliance remained a central mechanism for meeting its members' security needs. This involved expanding the organization with new members, enhancing relationships with NATO's partner countries and giving the alliance new capabilities. Canada has participated in every NATO mission since the alliance's creation. In recent years Canada has funded about 5.9 per cent of NATO’s
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
Reinstating the Draft To each and every person, war means something different. For some, it is against the things they believe in, but for others it is everything that they believe in. In America, the men and women have the privilege to determine whether or not they are a part of serving this country by going into: the marines, navy, national guard, air force, etc. Previous to this choice being available, they had what was called the military draft. The military draft is where men from the ages 18 to 25 years old legally have to register with Selective Services where you could potentially be chosen to go to war.
The United Nations and NATO are two organizations in this world that are working extremely hard to accomplish their goals, one step at a time. Maybe someday, the world will be a peaceful place and well have the United Nations and The North Atlantic Organization to thank for it.
Although Rosecrance makes valid arguments, I will focus on his second, which has a major flaw. Should the United States and Europe (and eventually China and ‘non-western’ nations) form economic an alliance, there would be no need for competition. With no competition, there is no threat and ultimately, the use for naval power becomes futile. Hence, militaristic organizations such as NATO will cease to exist.
In the 1950s, French insecurity feelings forced the state to strengthen its military and presumed Germany as their potential enemy. The state decided not to join the European Defence Community (EDC); where Britain and United States excluded, to stay away from its former archenemy. In other hand, the members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); particularly the hegemons US and Britain provided guarantees as the security providers to European in against potential German aggression. The guarantee triggered the French National Assembly to...
The United States is an extremely affluent country, however, the U.S. government does not allocate its funds correctly. The government spends entirely too much of the budget on military spending. A segment of the military budget should go towards education. Education is completely undervalued in America and is often pushed to the side in political debates. Conversely, several of the top-ranked countries in education are also flourishing economically. Even though the U.S. is struggling to compete in education, the government has all but given up at this point. There are no signs of increased education spending or a decrease in military spending. How is this country supposed to continue to grow and move forward if the citizens
Why is Russia afraid of NATO? The answer exist in the history of Russia and way of conducting foreign policy. Throughout the history Russia as a part of the Soviet Union have built their foreign policy on aggression and by attacking their neighbors. Here are some examples. The war with Poland in 1920, the military conflict with China in 1929, the military clash with Japan near Lake Hassan in 1938, the conflict over the river Halkin-Gol in 1939, the occupation of western Ukraine and western Belarus in 1939, and the attack on Finland in 1939. Finely, after World War II USSR occupied the of Eastern Europe
What makes a good person good? According to WikiHow, "We should learn to define our own morals ourselves. One of the simplest ways to do so is to love others, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Try to think of others before yourself. Even doing small things daily will greatly enrich and improve your life, and the lives of others around you." This quote shows us what we need to do in order to be what society thinks as, “good". In order to be a good person, you have to do good and moral things in your society consistently. However people might think that by doing one good thing once in a while will automatically make you a “good person”, but in reality it doesn’t.
(1) After the end of World War II, all involved countries, with no exception of being victorious or defeated, have started seeking of the prevention of a new disaster by reconstructing and maintaining the security and peace primarily in Europe. All huge and disastrous events (such as World Wars) which affected whole world were originated from the uncomfortable conditions and conflicts in the continent. Thus the main task was to settle a mechanism that would eliminate any emerging threat against the continental security and maintain the order and peace. For this purpose, in 1949 West European countries established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in order to protect the member countries against any possible attack which was primarily expected from the East European Countries led by the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, NATO’s primary goal was to circumvent any aggression held by the iron-curtain countries. Military deterrence (by developing high-tech and nuclear weapons and locating them to the eastern frontier of the Alliance, Germany and Turkey) was the main strategy in preventing any large-scale attack from the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries. By the end of Cold War many debates were made and still is going on whether the Alliance completed its mission in the territory. In spite of all, The North Atlantic Treaty has continued to guarantee the security of its member countries ever since. Today, following t...
Have you ever had to make a decision in your life? I’m pretty sure we all have, the decision can even be what you ate for breakfast in the morning. Robert Frost wrote a poem about a man who has to make an important decision. In the poem “The Road Not Taken”, by Robert Frost, he states, “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I - I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference” (Woods). To me taking the road less traveled by means, doing something on your own. It means not following a crowd, it means doing something unique. It can be hard to go your own way, but that is what Robert Frost is talking about. Everybody should go the path is right for them, not the one that many other people have gone down. There are many examples of people taking the unexpected path, I have gone through a path many people have never seen before, so have
When there is a conflict, alliance is needed to confront one’s enemy. That is the US-USSR confrontation would need alliances of the 2 blocs. But if one wants to solve a conflict and ease tension, international cooperation is needed to have conversation and a balance of power. That is the integration of the Europe as EU as a third power to counterbalance and maintain peace. All in all, the confrontation between the US and USSR during the Cold War brought about international conflicts for sure, but it did promote international cooperation at the same time.