The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is one of the world’s leading major international organizations. It is both a political and military Alliance of 28 member countries from Europe and North America. The Alliance takes all its decisions by consensus – every member country, regardless of size, has an even say in deliberations and decisions. Each member state is to be dedicated to individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These ideals are at the heart of NATO’s transatlantic bond. Because it is a collective defense with all of NATO’s territories and populations, as set out in the Washington Treaty, an attack on one would be considered to be an attack on all. I propose that the United States remains apart of NATO because of our credibility as a nation to help our allies when they are in need. …show more content…
By addressing both the potential drawbacks and benefits of the U.S.
remaining, I will provide my explanation on why it is better to remain than to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The drawbacks for the United States to remain in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would first start by addressing the radically altered and dangerous security environment in Europe produced by four interconnecting challenges within the recent years. Vladimir Putin’s aggression has led to the division of Georgia and Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to the Baltic states, military’s harassment of US forces in international airspace and international
waters. The Russia and United States rising tensions amongst one another has been one of the leading causes for wanting to withdraw from NATO due to the United States interfering in foreign affairs that have nothing to do with us and aggravation of inviting those surrounding Russia’s border to join. Because of interferences with Putin’s we are now committed to defending Slovenia, Albania, Greece, and Croatia. These countries, however, have little relevance to our own self-defense. In order to defend Eastern Europe from Putin’s aggression, U.S. must send its own U.S. soldiers to help combat. This raises alliance issues within our own state due to these soldiers being for U.S. related combat and not of other countries. In February 2016, the Alliance had actually admitted a tiny nation, Montenegro, as a member. This raises the question on whether or not alliances would indefinitely enhance America’s security – though how a microstate like Montenegro would increase America’s already vast military and economic power is enigmatic. It seems that NATO’s original purpose of securing peace is deterred by rising tensions against Russia, by protecting a collection of smaller players on their border. Our devotion to NATO’s ideals is what is costing us hefty prices. On top of being the main source of security for Europe, the United States spends approximately “75% of total NATO expenditures”, a whopping $582.40 billion for NATO’s members’ military expenditure (Business Insider). The United States being one of the only five nations to satisfy NATO’s 2% minimum requirement on military spending based on GDP. This is extremely unfair because of how we would be able to use that money on securing Europe to satisfy our own needs as a nation. As President Trump’s campaign has reiterated over and over again, “We need to put America first”. Regardless of the cost, having allies is one of the better options for a country to have. This prevents from countries within the European continent from going to war with one another. Especially with NATO’s Command Structure (Lecture) of a permanent, integrated military command structure where military and civilian personnel from all member states work together. Relating it back to my proposal, because of this command structure, stationing military forces on a permanent basis in Poland, the Baltic states, the Black Sea region, and the Arctic – will make NATO’s strategic deterrence and our Article V commitment real, unambiguous and unyielding to Putin. As Paul Schroeder says about alliance development, “to oppose a threat; to accommodate a threat through a ‘pact of restraint’, [or] to provide the great powers with a ‘tool of management’ over weaker states”. These three reasons benefit the U.S. as Russia tensions grow, it is better to have countries surrounding the border of Russia be apart of NATO as it sends a message of defiance and upholding the ideals of peace and security. Seen within Professor Wallace’s Power and Coercion lessons, when alliances use coercion it causes credibility and looking at NATO, credibility amongst the United States is guaranteed. The United States has always played a key role in stabilizing Europe since the Cold War, where credibility for us first began as a powerhouse for an international organization, especially given that the United States had joined with the United Nations four years prior to the creation of NATO. It would then seem ill-fitting of us if we were to abandon our European allies as they struggle to stabilize their economies today. On top of abandoning the values we have upheld since 1949 when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created, we would lose big in trading. It is extremely critical for the U.S. to stay in NATO and remain a strong leader because of how we would lose more than gain when looking at NATO-Europe. The European Union is one of the U.S.’s largest trading partner. The E.U. and NATO having 22 countries in common, NATO ensures security for almost all of the E.U member states, which has been important when trying to strengthen their economies. By providing strong leadership, E.U countries would rank “second as an export market for the United States” With a newly elected president in the United States, it is rather difficult to get a reading of whether or not the U.S. will continue to remain in NATO. Though adolescent in delivery, President Trump’s critique of NATO has effectively raised concerns that could potentially pull the United States out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. By calling NATO “obsolete”, he subsequently told European leaders that he agreed on the “fundamental importance” of the military alliance and emphasized the need for all members to pay a fair share for defense. This has not been the first time that NATO leaders have been wanting to deliver for years. Though it is correct that we are not the World’s (authorized) Police, the United States does play a critical role in international security, economy and trading, and being a Westernized/leading Democratic regime country. Therefore, the United States reputational stakes would be put to risk if we are to withdraw from an organization whose ideals are “individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law”. Had it not been for our tedious interference in foreign affairs, maybe then would we be able to leave NATO with our reputation, somewhat, still in tact. That is not the case.
The National Security Agency or NSA for short is a United States federal government intelligence organization that is used for global monitoring and collecting data. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush implemented the NSA’s domestic spying program to conduct a range of surveillance activities inside the United States. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this program as it allows the NSA to tap into the public’s phone calls, cameras, internet searches, text messages, and many other mediums to seek out individuals that may be potential threats to the security of the general public. Many individuals say that the tactics used by the NSA are unconstitutional as they invade people’s privacy. This is primarily
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
The U.S. had just elected President Kennedy two years prior to this very threatening occasion, and every nation thought he was a weak leader who just craved attention. During this time, the Soviets and the U.S. were right in the middle of the Cold War (1947-1991): the period of time when both nations were trying to spread their type of government and become superior, making us enemies. Just a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. had made a failed attempt at invading Cuba at the Bay of Pigs to overthrow their communist dictator, Fidel Castro. Once Russia caught wind of this failed invasion, they quickly jumped at their chance at becoming allies with Castro, and started building nuclear bombs in Cuba. Kennedy had recently placed bombs in Turkey, Russia’s neighbor probably leading the soviets to place some of theirs in Cuba, because of how close it was to America; one nuclear bomb could reach Washington D.C. in 30 minutes.
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...
The duties and responsibilities of the fire department are most importantly responding to fires and other emergencies that involve the assistance from the department such as vehicle accidents, flooding, emergency rescue, and first aid response. When it comes to a fire departments duties and responsibilities when it comes to mutual aid agreements it is to coordinate planning, multiply the response resources available to any one jurisdiction, ensure timely arrival of aid, arrange for specialized resources, and minimize administrative conflict and litigation post-response.
The Cold War presented the United States with a unique decision. The Soviet Union had created a space program and the United States needed to decide if a space program would be beneficial for them. The Soviets sent probes out to space, and soon American probes followed. There are many reasons that the U.S. could have made this decision, but two reasons are more prominent that the others. Firstly the United States found it necessary to compete with the Soviets, and they could not accept the fact that the U.S.S.R had something that they didn’t. Secondly, JFK and his administration thought that space was the final frontier, and it would provide valuable scientific research. Ultimately, John F Kennedy and the United States decided to create a space
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...
In the next section of Carpenter’s argument, he discusses the failure of the U.S. to recognize the different forms of engagement options. The most constructive alternative to the current indispensable policy is the consortium model of regional actors that has the U.S. serving as the “first among equals” (pg.24) allowing the U.S. to off-load security responsibilities as well as adopting a more detached strategic role would benefit the U.S. at minimal
"North Atlantic Treaty Organization." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
In 1919 the countries involved in World War I met at the Paris Peace Conference in hope to find solutions to maintain world peace. In hope to maintain world peace, the Allies who won World War I created an agreement between themselves and the defeated countries. John Maynard Keynes - an English economist – worked for the British government with a position at the treasury. He attended the Paris Peace Conference and wrote the book The Economic Consequences of Peace, in which he stated his opinions about the treaty.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4 1949. The fundamental goal of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO links North America and Europe by providing a forum in which the United States, Canada and European countries can consult together on security issues of common concern and take joint action in addressing them.
In 1945, when the Americans bombed Hiroshima, Japan, approximately 140,000 men and women were instantly killed by the effects of American nuclear defense. With such extreme brutality and force how many people must die for one to finally realize the strengths of nuclear bombs and what damage they can cause. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they kill thousands of innocent humans at a time, destroy the environment, and inviolate human’s right to moral and personal freedoms.
look like a risk free operation. But the truth is that there are many risks and dangers that go with the expansion of NATO. It has been said that the expansion of NATO would be
For instance, in 1995.... ... middle of paper ... ...press ahead with EU defence on their own, using the EU institutions. and assets and the. With any common EU security policy bound to conflict with NATO policy, it is argued that the biggest threat to NATO comes from within, and that the fact that it is an alliance of such different.