Relationship Between The European Union ( Eu ) And The North Atlantic Trade Organization

“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.

Europe and the United States both have vested interest in maintaining security, supporting open trade, building upon each other’s strong economy, and reducing political barriers. Many critical shipping routes for commercial and military access are located in the region and must be available for Freedom of Navigation. EUCOM was officially approved in 1946 and established in 1952 as a unified command to preserve peace in Europe. Over the last 65 years, EUCOM provided direct support to U.S. national interest in Europe and within NATO. The U.S. is a global leader in military defense spending and global security. U.S. defense spending in relationship to GDP was 4.5% in 2012. Permanent stationing of U.S. forces abroad is expensive, but the benefits of overseas military presence help deter regional hegemony and provocative actions that lead to open conflict.

The President’s recent actions to send troops to Poland and Lithuania to defend our NATO allies has led to questions regarding the constitutionality of such action and the role congress plays in crafting American foreign policy. It is very important to understand these questions and the debates that surround them are not new to our nation. In fact, two of our nations most important founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, debated the balance of congressional and presidential power in foreign affairs all the way back in 1793. Similarly, the need to defend our NATO allies is nothing new. As Russia looks to expand its “sphere of influence” and return to its Cold War Self; we must ensure that our military and our NATO allies have the

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

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

President Truman describe NATO’s creation as “… a neighbourly act taken by countries deeply conscious of their shared heritage as democracies that had come together determined to defend their common values and interests from those who threatened them … The Washington Treaty’s goal was to establish a zone of peace in an area of the world that had been at the heart of … two wars” (Asmus, 2002, pp. 46-57).

INTRODUCTION NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), built up on April 4, 1949 under the North Atlantic Treaty, was marked in Washington by 10 Western European nations and two from North America (Belgium, Denmark). France, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Luxembourg,, Portugal, USA, UK and Italy). The idea of NATO is aggregate resistance, giving common help, including military help, in case of an assault on one gathering or gatherings to the Treaty. The legitimate reason for the foundation of NATO is Art. 51 of the UN Charter, asserting the privileges of States to both individual and aggregate self-protection.

NATO, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an organization with core military capabilities that can be calibrated to respond to a large group of security challenges. It was established to serve a purpose in the wake of the War on Terror and build peace and democracy in NATO nations after World War Two. NATO has responded to emerging challenges by taking up new missions on violence, undertaking unprecedented military operations, and expanding its membership and development of relationships. Recently, Trump has questioned NATO’s importance and relevance; slamming it as “obsolete”. Although Trump’s comment about burden-sharing has some merit, his judgements are misguided.

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

In A Future for NATO and the European Union, Paul Rahe argues his position of support regarding the United States’ involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In an effort to adequately justify his stance so that the audience may adopt his perspective as well, Rahe utilizes several rhetorical strategies, including that of indirectly revealing his viewpoint through purposeful word choice, hyperbolic statements, historical references, as well as subtly alluding to possible political issues, although he does not have time to expand on such.

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.

It is crucial for international organizations like NATO to work with individual countries in collaborated efforts to ensure the successful meeting of crucial military and political goals. However, it must be careful what nations it enters into agreements with, as it may have negative ramifications on a global stage. This research explores the political, military, and general considerations for allowing Azerbaijan to into a NATO-led CJTF agreement.

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.

For Ullman, a security threat was defined as “an action or sequence of events that, (I) threatens drastically . . . to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state, or (II) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available.” While the state remains the referent object, Ullman’s definition alludes to the necessity of expanding the threats to beyond a military dimension. Under this understanding of security, a state faces threats from a range of sources; which include external and internal physical disturbance, but also events such as natural disasters, health epidemics and a shortage of raw materials. As the Cold War was winding down, the concept of a broadened or widened began to once again emerge in security discourse. The end of the Cold War signalled a paradigm-shift in international relations for many scholars of security studies. Barry Buzan described the state of international relations in 1991 with,” strong signs that the security agenda among the great powers will be much less dominated, perhaps not dominated at all, by political/military issue.” With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the risk of military conflict was seen as low risk. A notion reflected after a 1990 NATO summit meeting resulting in a new strategic concept for the alliance, with stated, “With the radical changes in the security situation…It is now possible to draw all the consequences from

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.