NATO: The North Atlantic Council (NAC)

(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

NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is a military group started by the United States of America that consists of fifteen other countries including Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. “By the time Truman was inaugurated as President in January of 1949, the Cold War was intensifying. Using this tension to his advantage, Truman had campaigned on a platform that gave his future foreign policy a key role.

Before, the Communist Soviet Union was the unifying threat that brought NATO into existence, but now that danger was gone. NATO could accept one of two fates, “it must either consider a new foundational priority/goal/purpose as a basis for coherent

It has been argued that there is not one reason for all these events to occur over half a century in 1945 to 1991. There are different factors for different times and different events that influenced foreign policy between those dates. Ideology, security and the nuclear race have been disputed to be the main drives of the cold war period. These factors are also intertwined with one another, therefore it can be difficult to state which is the core factor for this conflict. In this essay, the importance and critiques of these factors will be discussed. In the post-world war world, political and military tensions arose between powers in the Eastern and the Western blocks. In 1946, Winston Churchill held a speech in Fulton, Missouri, arguing how an ‘iron curtain’ had descended between east and west. This iron curtain meant there was a boundary line which had divided Europe into two separate areas of political influence. (Heywood, 2014) argued that the cold war was merely driven by “misunderstandings and misconceptions from both sides”.

NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; a “political and military alliance”. NATO started in 1949 with 12 nations: the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Canada, United Kingdom and Portugal. According to an article “NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means”. NATO involves a line of defense as well as democratic values. Roland Flamini starts his article of with describing NATO as the “west line defense” during the cold war, but then explain how some feel “about NATO relevance”.

In the year following the formation of the Warsaw Pact by the Soviet bloc, NATO military authorities began working on a series of new documents in order to create a consistent set of new strategies.

Created in 1949 as a security alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly called NATO, is comprised of 28 European and American nations. However, judge, the United States should withdraw from this group.

What NATO is doing now is simply not part of its original detail expected as the world has changed since 1949. Jihadists have taken the stage as the new "Red Devil," and the evolving alliance known as NATO wants to survive. The persistence of NATO proves that institutions adapt to changing surroundings to survive rather than die. As Mearsheimer said about states, the key incentive is to survive. States that do not act aggressively get overrun. The same can be said for institutions, if NATO does not go on the advance on occasion, then it will fall into the ash heap of history.

The viability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been shaped, and in some ways galvanized, by its experience in the waning Afghanistan conflict and its deep concern with the developing crisis of Russian aggression in Europe. The United States and the allies are incorporating the lessons learned from the Afghanistan campaign while re-establishing the fundamental priorities and basis for the Alliance. The Alliance has weathered decades of the cold war and periods of revolutionary change. It has expanded its members while also expanding its responsibilities in the modern world which is still beset by old problems. These collective problems still require collective security, which NATO still maintains and will continue to

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance created by the United States, Canada, and certain European Countries. The alliance requires member nations to provide mutual defense to each other in the response to an attack by another nation. The alliance also formed in response to the increasing power of the Soviet Union shortly after World War II. They were an alliance of democracy and westernization that stood against the terrifying power of the Soviet Empire and rapid expansion of Communism in countries of the developing world. But, today the USSR has fallen and without an enemy to defend themselves from, many have begun to question whether NATO still has a place

NATO is currently violating the sovereignty of many states, which is considered the greatest breach of international law. Humanitarian interventions led by NATO are becoming big controversies as many individuals and states are wary of the fact that they do not support world peace. Many unruly interventions have taken place such as the war in Kosovo in 1998. The motives behind the war as well as the means used to conduct it will be focused on in this research paper. NATO-fought wars often tend to leave a large number of casualties, leaving the world horrified and one step further from world peace. In addition, it is important to study the rights and power of NATO to understand the implications of international law in politics and the worldwide realist paradigm we live in. This paper will help to further our understanding of the issue at hand, which is the overbearing intervention happening in the world and NATO’s role in controlling the power it holds. The use of NATO’s power will be critiqued and explained to finally show that it should not have the right to violate another state since it is violating international law, it is known for its atrocious acts during wars, such as unsolicited bombings, throughout history like in Afghanistan in 2001, and since its original purpose of creation is no longer valid, it is not a legitimate organization.

NATO’s degree of involvement is not limited to its member states as over 40 states, which are not members of the organization, are involved in political and security issues concerning the organization. Roping in other countries has facilitated improved exchange of information, enhanced understanding of conflicts in regions where NATO seeks to intervene but does not have a presence. Despite being an American-centric entity, NATO’s functions have all the attributes of an international organization working for the preservation of international peace.

Liberal institutionalism provides policymakers with a vision of an idyllic world that is useful for communicating, with heavy rhetorical flavor, lofty promises to both a domestic and international audience. Theoretically and empirically, however, the theory fails to stand up against the necessary scrutiny. First, liberal institutionalism has failed to present itself as a successful challenge to realism, which remains a more compelling paradigm in the study of international relations. Two of the major faults of this theory involve its refusal to recognize the basic balance-of-power interests at play as well as its lack of focus on explaining how international institutions can prevent the domination of one power. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provides a useful lens for examining the issues with institutionalism, as it demonstrates that international institutions are, in fact, a reflection of realist tenets. More specifically, the United States’ determination to maintain its European hegemony through NATO offers several compelling reasons to criticize institutionalist theory. The country’s roles in NATO in the 1990s revealed the extent to which liberalism has failed as a major paradigm of international relations. While international institutions at times may seem to foster cooperation among states, NATO

NATO’s 11-week bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in March 1999 was a challenge in the history of the North Atlantic alliance. For the first time, NATO launched an armed intervention outside its borders in order to avert a humanitarian crisis (Solana 1999: 114). The bombing campaign was intended to stop Belgrade’s repression of Kosovo’s Albanian population and to oblige the Milosevic regime to accept NATO’s demands regarding the future political status of Kosovo (Wippman 2001: 129).

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was created in 1949. NATO was seen as being a viable military deterrent against the military might of the Soviet Union. In response to NATO admitting the membership of West Germany, the Soviet Union was to gather all its client states in Eastern Europe into the Warsaw Pact in May 1955. The heart of NATO beat around the military and financial muscle of the United States. However, because the post-war Soviet threat was perceived to be against Western Europe, the headquarters of NATO was based in Brussels, Belgium.