Lord Ismay: The Future Of NATO

“I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This declaration, made by former President Harry S. Truman on March 12, 1947, is part of the Truman Doctrine, and was the basis for U.S. involvement in Western Europe throughout the Cold War. Although the North Atlantic Treaty, and the resulting North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was established during the Cold War “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” NATO has persisted since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. This essay will seek to examine the U.S. decision to create and participate in NATO. It will begin by providing a history of NATO and the U.S. decision to participate in NATO before considering how this decision is both an instance of continuity and change in U.S. foreign policy since former President George Washington’s Farewell Address. The essay will conclude by considering the legacy of this decision and its impact on U.S. foreign policy. While this essay will consider the period of time leading up to the formation of NATO and will briefly touch on the present day, greatest consideration will be paid to the time period immediately preceding and following the formation of NATO in 1949.

Yet, this hope was met with failure. In response to NATO, the Soviets created their own alliance called the Warsaw Pact which unified the Soviets and their satellite states. Overall, because of legislatures like Truman’s policy of containment, NATO, and The Marshall Plan, the United States funded billions to limit the Soviet’s from expansion as well as protect their own interests both domestically and

In a excerpt from the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) that was signed by United States, Canada, and ten nations of Western Europe in 1948 states that

It is a political and military alliance designed to promote stability of the North Atlantic area and safeguard the freedoms of its peoples, based on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. Moreover, since the Second World War, the idea of counter-balance against American dominance has been a major

39. The founding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is best understood in the context of what post-world war 2 events?

Rupp, R. (2000). NATO 1949 and NATO 2000: From the Common defense toward collective security. Journal of Strategic Studies, 23(3), 154-176.

“First, as one of the architects of the Grand Alliance he, in effect, recognized the tragic reality of its dissolution. Second, he traced the roots of the dawning conflict to Soviet territorial ambitions. Third, he urged the West to be firm - in the form of both closer British Commonwealth -American association and a new European unity, from which, he said, "no nation should be outcast" (Harriman)

5 Paragraph review Nato & the warsaw pact NATO was an alliance formed in 1949 between the united states and other western nations to prevent and stop communism. The warsaw pact formed in 1955 it was the alliance between communist countries to do the opposite, keep and spread communism. These two alliances started tensions that lead to what is now called the cold war. I chose this topic because it lead to the scare of ww3 and the end of the world. These pacts also helped the world because there was so much pressure to be the best that many technological advancement would come as a result of the competition.

What used to seem so simple in making every country feel like an equal is failing right now and Europe is not happy about it. “Although NATO is an alliance of equals, with consensus as its core decision making principle, the organization functions and matters only to the degree that the United States remains engaged. The security policy goals of the United States are a key variable for NATO. The Alliance’s future viability depends on whether the Europeans will share American priorities and accept the attendant risks. Today, one must ask to what extent NATO contributes to those goals and where it has fallen short” (Michta 1). Many of these European countries are taking sides not of the United States and this is really hurting their Alliance, for example the United States has a certain strategy for minimizing Islamist terrorism that countries such as France and Germany do not agree with one bit. But it looks like everything is working out for the best and NATO might actually be expanding again. “The United States’ choice to foster NATO enlargement was essential in helping overcome the divisions of the Cold War era. From the start of NATO enlargement, American policy drove the evolution of NATO to a much greater extent than the policies of any other ally. Enlargement reflected expectations that the norm-setting aspect of the Alliance and NATO’s role as a community of values would suffice to reconstitute and sustain it as a viable security

Leffler stated that “they were worried that the Kremlin might exploit these weaknesses to alter the balance of power… so they harnessed the economic principles of the open door to the national security interests of the United States. (Heilbrunn) Leffler describes the Cold War in this way: “…neither the Americans nor the Soviets sought to harm the other in 1945… The protests that each country’s actions evoked from the other fueled the cycle of distrust as neither could comprehend the fears of the other, perceiving its own actions as defensive. Herein rests the classic security dilemma… U.S. officials… chose to contain and deter the Russians rather than to reassure and placate them, thereby accentuating possibilities for a spiraling cycle of mistrust.” (Heilbrunn) In 1947, Ernest Bevin, British foreign secretary, “believed it essential to construct a defensive military alliance in Western Europe; and in December of that year he proposed to George C. Marshall an alliance that would guarantee Western European security and prevent further Soviet aggrandizement.” (Heilbrunn) This proposal was realized in the North Atlantic Treaty and the establishment of NATO in 1949. Only an alliance such as this would halt Soviet infiltration and the gradual collapse of one western wall after another. According to Heilbrunn, the Soviet military buildup started after 1945. By 1950 American intelligence estimates suggested that the Soviets

They have different purposes, but they basically strive for the same goals. UN's purpose is to preserve world peace and security, encourage nations to be just in their actions toward each other, help nations cooperate in trying to solve their problems, and serve as an agency through which nations can work toward these goals. NATO's purpose is to enhance the stability, well-being, and freedom of its members by means of collective security.

NATO lost its principle match after the crumple of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union. Be that as it may, the partnership was kept up with a specific end goal to avoid military patriotism and give the premise to European security. NATO in this manner chose to participate with its adversaries once and build up a Partnership for Peace to bring Central and Eastern European nations nearer to the Alliance. The following noteworthy advance in NATO's history was the amplification of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary on 12 March 1999. Proceeding with extension happened in 2004 and 2009.

If both benefit the most in cooperating, as is the case in the prisoner’s dilemma, they will both cooperate, and peace will be maintained . This basic liberal assumption of the importance of individual gains is the main support for European integration. If all states cooperate in all arenas, leading to a collectively sovereign “Europe”, the individual gains of each state will be adequate enough to avoid conflict among themselves making it easier to approach the rest of the international system together peacefully.

While “Washington is pushing hard to help Ukraine, enthusiasm seems weaker among NATO’s other members” (“Rumsfeld Praises Ukraine for NATO Membership Effort”). At the Vilnius, Lithuania conference in October 2003, less than half of the member countries were represented.

NATO starts the year 2000 with the issue of concern. The European Allies' defense capability, stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and relations with Russia are at the top of a highly charged agenda.