Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - European History History of NATO History of NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed after World War II when the North Atlantic treaty was signed in 1949. The original countries were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United States. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, West Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were admitted in 1999. Today, these 19 countries make up the alliance, which may be looking to add new members. NATO was formed as an alliance in which all the members agreed to help each other defend themselves against outside threats. These main outside threats were the recently defeated Germany and the powerful Communist Soviet Union. An old saying by one of the early leaders of NATO says, “NATO exists to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.” The North Atlantic Treaty consists of a preamble and 14 articles. The preamble states the purpose of the treaty: to promote the common values of its members and to “unite their efforts for collective defense.” Article 1 calls for peaceful resolution of disputes. Article 2 pledges the parties to economic and political cooperation. Article 3 calls for development of the capacity for defense. Article 4 provides for joint consultations when a member is threatened. Article 5 promises the use of the members' armed forces for “collective self-defense.” Article 6 defines the areas covered by the treaty. Article 7 affirms the precedence of members' obligations under the United Nations Charter. Article 8 safeguards against conflict with any other treaties of the signatories. Article 9 creates a council to oversee implementation of the treaty. Article 10 describes admission procedures for other nations. Article 11 states the ratification procedure. Article 12 allows for reconsideration of the treaty. Article 13 outlines withdrawal procedures. Article 14 calls for the deposition of the official copies of the treaty in the U.S. Archives. In the early years of NATO, it was mainly the United States that served as a defense for the rebuilding countries of Europe. As the Soviets became more of a threat, the NATO countries united more and sort of became one military power all together. As the Cold War era was unfolding, it looked as if it would be NATO versus the Soviet Union for a long time. The one most important success that could be accredited to the treaty and the actions of the alliance is ending the cold war. With all the power that the NATO forces had along with the power that the soviets possessed, war seemed inevitable. “The much-vaunted nuclear capability of NATO turns out, as a practical matter, to have been far less important to the eventual outcome than its conventional forces. But above all, it was NATO’s soft power that bested its adversary”(Mastny 1). This ‘soft power’ is what surprised the Soviet Union and the other eastern countries. NATO’s success at helping to bring the cold war to an end gave it more power as more and more countries in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, looked to be under the blanket of protection that the alliance could provide. As the Soviet Union was breaking up along with the unification of Germany, NATO was counted on to do more than just protect the security of the member nations. In Bosnia, NATO decided to take action to undermine the Serbian nationals led by Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosovic. At first it looked like NATO could actually fail at its mission of bringing peace to this very delicate situation. “NATO could yet abandon the victim Kosovars, at what might be terminal loss to alliance humanity and credibility. Or it could multiply the stakes by a potentially extremely risky and costly escalation”(Rosenfeld 2). NATO kind of dove into the situation without a plan and it backfired at the beginning. “The alliance dillydallied, creating the raw dilemma it is fumbling with now”(Rosenfeld 2). Instead of using the ‘soft power’ that was successful during the cold war, NATO decided to flex its military muscle and began strikes on the Milosovic led Serbians. This brought on more resentment and more killing of civilians by the Serbian forces instead of forcing them to bargain like NATO intended. This short-term failure ended though when after months of bombing destroyed the Yugoslav infrastructure, finally made Yugoslavia to give in to most of NATO’s demands. Although there is still a lot of ethnic tension and even acts of violence, NATO is considered responsible for ending the war in Serbia. “The role of…NATO peacekeepers in places like Sekirac is helping to stabilize Kosovo and give its residents, Kosovo Serb and Albanian alike, a chance to begin to live in peace”(Shattuck 2). The future of NATO is being guided by the global views of the United States. After the Kosovo involvement, NATO began to be more involved in other European and world affairs. The Untied States has been pushing for more involvement in globalization and even the addition of more member states. Many European nations are more concerned with only European problems and controversies and they are opposed to the American idea of globalization. “Apart from Germany, no European ally [shows] any strong enthusiasm for expanding the alliance”(The Economist 3). There are many supporting and critical ideas to the expansion of NATO. Some feel that the incentive to join the ‘Western’ led alliance will help bring reform and prosperity to struggling eastern European countries. Others believe that Russia will see NATO’s inclusion of former Warsaw pact countries as a “direct affront” and would stop its peaceful negotiations with the west (Goldgeier 2). So depending on what the expansion of the alliance entails, it is hard to tell what exactly NATO will accomplish in the future. Bibliography: Works Cited “America Versus Europe.” The Economist 24 April 1999: SN5-SN8. Proquest. Gutman Library, Philadelphia Univ. . Goldgeier, James M. “The U.S. Decision to enlarge NATO: How, When, Why, And What Next?” The Brookings Review 17.3 (1999): 18-21. Proquest. Gutman Library, Philadelphia Univ. . Mastny, Vojtech. “Did NATO Win the Cold War?” Foreign Affairs 78.3 (1999): 176-189. Proquest. Gutman Library, Philadelphia Univ. . Rosenfeld, Stephen S. “Farewell, NATO.” The Washington Post 2 Apr. 1999 : A29. Proquest. Gutman Library, Philadelphia Univ. . Shattuck, John. “NATO’s Success Story in the Balkans.” Boston Globe 22 Jul. 2000: A15. Proquest. Gutman Library, Philadelphia Univ. . Word Count: 961
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests