The Treaty of Westphalia marks the birth of states. A state consists of five basic elements: a territory, a population, a government, sovereignty, and recognition. States are always striving for security and pursuing their interests. Their actions affect other states and can change the balance of power in the international system. The study of international relations examines states and how they interact in the international system. Creating foreign policy is essential for each state. When conducting policy, states are always keeping their best interests in mind.
This paper is going to examine a foreign policy of the United States. The United States is a pole in this post-Cold War multipolar international system. A pole or polarity refers to the distribution of powers by order in the international system. (Guyah, 2013). Their actions and foreign policies have an effect on other states. Foreign policies can be either long-term or short-term. A long-term foreign policy is consulted on with many people, groups, and branches in government. Many alternatives are debated, and opinions are heard. In a short-term foreign policy, there is limited time to decide on a policy. Sometimes these policies are crisis policies. Only a small group of people debate the decision. These people usually include the president and his advisors. Political scientists study these policy decisions and the actions of government. The study of international relations helps the world understand why states act the way they do. Political scientists are then able to make predictions, establish norms, and see patterns in a state.
In this paper, the reader will learn and understand the leadership role the United States played in executing the transition of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to a post-Cold War security organization. The paper will acknowledge examples of when the United States took the lead in NATO related operations. It will also address how this collective security structure helped achieve some of the United States’ foreign policy objectives. I chose to write on this topic because the United States’ president was debating on leaving the NATO alliance. I found this topic to be especially interesting since it is currently in the news.
This paper will use the liberal perspective. Liberalism is sometimes associated with idealism. This approach using the state-level of analysis, which focuses on the domestic politics and policies of a state. Only when states are studied fully and with detail, we are able to compare them and make generalizations about them. Liberalism believes that the states are driven by the balance of power in the international system. States want to shape the world order. This theory calls for peace and cooperation instead of war. This is because a peaceful negotiation is easier than fighting and spending money on a war. Through these negotiations, states establish norms and create international law.
This paper will start by outlining the post-World War II context in which NATO was born into. Then it will go through the reasons for the creation of NATO and the goals it wished to achieve. Throughout this paper, the reader will see an emphasis on the role of the United States leadership in NATO. The goal of this paper is to examine the United States goals, role, and means in this organization in this post-Cold War system. The most important thing that will be discussed is the role the United States took in the transition of NATO to a security organization. The reader will see how NATO has helped fulfill some of the United States’ foreign policies inside and outside of Europe. Lastly, it will highlight the recent discussion of NATO in the White House. President Trump was upset when he learned that the United States was paying for most of NATO. He is satisfied now that the other countries promised to increase their own defense spending. (Fritze, USA TODAY, 2018).
ANALYSIS
The international system in which NATO was born
World War II ended with the rising of two superpower nations, the United States and the Soviet Union. The war left Europe so damaged it needed and accepted help from the United States through the Marshall Plan. There was a decolonization of non-Europeans countries that brought them into involvement in the international system. Obviously, the rest of the Western world did not view them as states. (Latham, 1994). A state is defined as a population, with a government, a territory, sovereignty, and recognition. Some states rise up to become hegemonic powers. The United States became a hegemony following World War II. A hegemony is a state’s military and economic predominance in the international system. It also includes the attractiveness of the state’s values and interest. (Lee, 1998). The United States could not go back to being isolationist after this war. The country was deeply entwined with the rest of the world. Some people even believed that the United States had “responsibilities” to the rest of the world. (Wittkopf, 39-40). World War II was a catalyst to the rise of United States power. The war fueled American interest, helped businesses profit, and lead to the creation of the Bretton Woods System then the United Nations (UN). The Bretton Woods System is the agreement that established the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. This agreement helped Europe’s economy and resulted in the creation of the euro currency. The United Nations is an organization with the goal to spread peace and stability through relationships and negotiations. In 1950, a year after the creation of NATO, the United States put out National Security Council 68. This document set the plan for the post-World War II and Cold War time periods. At the time, this document was top secret. It was when the United States officially declared the Soviet Union and communism a threat. Communism was seen as a threat to “freedom, liberty, and prosperity throughout the world.” (Wittkopf, 40). It is the opposite of democracy and capitalism, which are American ideologies. There was a domino theory that believed once a country fell astray to communism, the neighboring country would also fall. The United States felt the best way to proceed was with an enormous build-up of the military. The United States needed to feel more secure and building up arms was the best way to achieve this. The Soviet Union and its ideologies were threatening to the United States. This was the world in which NATO was born.
NATO
In 1949, with the help of the United States and 11 Western states, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded. Harry S. Truman was the president of the United States at the time, and he pushed for the concept of containment of the USSR. In response, the Soviet Union and their alliances created the Warsaw Pact in 1955. These two alignments were the supplied the structure of the Cold War. On April 4, 1949, the leaders of 12 states from North America and Europe came together to sign the treaty. The signing took place in Washington, D.C. (history.com, 2018). Essentially NATO is a security and defense agreement. (Rulska, 2, 2010). The liberal perspective calls for peace and cooperation rather than war. NATO, from a liberal angle, is exactly the type of organization that the international system needs to help maintain stability. The United States is the leader and biggest contributor to this organization since it is one of the major world powers. With this superpower leading, the balance of power and status quo will remain stable.
NATO was born to achieve three key things: keep the United States a hegemony, keep Germany in check, and to contain the Soviet Union and its ideologies. A big part of NATO was to make sure the Soviet Union could not expand. Since today this is no longer an issue, NATO does not have a “precise mission”. (Logan, foreignpolicy.com, 2014). Today, NATO is looking to keep peace and cooperation among members and be a security defense mechanism. NATO’s main aims and goals are further explained in the body of the treaty. Article One of the treaty states that the members of the organization will settle matters peacefully and without force. The UN Charter is mentioned and calls for the members to keep this document in mind. Article Two calls for the members to “strengthen” their free institutions and put an end to conflicts in international economic policies. Article Three request that countries do their best to prevent military attacks. Article Four promises that states will “consult” each other if the security of a member is in danger. The most known section of the treaty is Article Five. This article says that if one member is attacked, all the members are under attack. Each member will be expected to help the attacked member. Here, Article 51 of the UN Charter is mentioned. This article gives countries the right to self-defense. Members must do whatever possible to bring back the security of the land. Of course, this attack would have to be reported to the UN Security Council, where more steps would be taken to reconstruct security. The remaining important articles define an armed attack, assures that the UN Charter is not affected by this treaty, establish a council to discuss organization matters, and discusses the future of the organization. (nato.int).
In the transition into the post-Cold War system, NATO decided to add a new Strategic Concept. This 8-year-old document outlines the security goals and essence of NATO. It is a guide for the future of the organization in its political and military growth. The document also includes a restatement of NATO’s purposes which are stated in the treaty. It tells the best ways for NATO to carry out “core tasks” and to go about the modern transition. The document also explains how to tackle modern threats like cyber-attacks and ballistic missile attacks. The organization wants to develop new alliances with more countries. (nato.int, 2010). This type of document is pleasing to the liberalism perspective since it stresses cooperation and peace before war.
NATO’S influence on U.S. Foreign Policy
From 1949 until today, NATO has become a security alliance. NATO is made up of mostly European countries. From the end of World War II until the present day, NATO has expanded closer and closer to Russia. America’s goal to contain the Soviet Union and their ideologies was successful with the help of NATO. Therefore, NATO has helped shape and fulfill certain United States foreign policies. Even when NATO was still a fairly new policy, it was having an effect on U.S. foreign policies. President Eisenhower’s secretary of state John Dulles, after confronting criticism, planned to make NATO more economic organization rather than a military one. This is another reason why this organization is desirable to liberalism. Dulles dreamed for NATO to be a center for “political consultation and mutual policy determination” among members. (thecrimson.com, 1956). Today we know NATO is equally military and economic in nature. Many foreign policies elites believe that NATO is essential for United States security and is needed more now than it was in 1949. There is no alternative policy that would have achieved the goals of the members. Even after NATO overcame its main obstacle, it continues to be a key aspect of peace and security in the international system.
Today we still see NATO having an influence over United States foreign policies. The United States continues to stay committed to NATO and its mostly European member states. One can see how NATO shaped U.S. foreign policy in Europe through the cases of the Kosovo conflict of 1999 and Norway in 2018. In the late 1990s, there was an ethnic conflict between Albanians, Yugoslavians, and Serbians. This conflict was only resolved with the help of NATO. In June of 1999, following NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO and Yugoslavia signed an agreement that called for the removal of the Yugoslav army and Serbian police from Kosovo. During this time, the Serbians and the Yugoslavians have been fighting over Kosovo for a few years. (Jones, 149, 2006). Instead of the United States helping sort out this situation themselves, NATO was able to complete the task. Being that the United States is the world superpower, they are expected to intervene especially when human rights are involved. Having the NATO Alliance helps the United States even though it has the most capabilities. Also, the bombings caused 800,000 people to become displaced. Kosovo’s health care system was practically destroyed. The United States donated hundreds of millions of dollars to help get its health system running again. (Jones, 160, 2006). If NATO used a different tactic, instead of the bombing, the United States would not have needed to donate money. The liberal ideology would not agree with the route NATO took to handle this situation. A more recent case is NATO’s Trident Juncture, which will take place on October 25 in Norway. This exercise is a test of NATO’s ability to respond to an attack. It prepares the member to know what to do if another member is in danger. Basically, the member states are testing and preparing their abilities in case of a war with the West. The West is most likely going to be upset with these test runs. Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, said on October 24, 2018, that he was unhappy with the United States putting missiles in Europe. He said that he will have no problem issuing a counterstriking. (Kramer, New York Times, 2018). The West will probably try to do a similar exercise with its allies. This has an influence on U.S. foreign policy because the United States and its allies now have a plan in case the tensions with Russia rise. This is displaying the concept of collective security, which means members promise to defense each other in times of conflict.
NATO has also shaped U.S. foreign policy outside of Europe. Two cases are the United States’ response to the Libyan crisis and the Afghanistan War. First, the Libyan crisis started in 2011 with protests in Northern Africa. The United States’ commitment to NATO was somewhat displayed during the Libyan crisis. These protests spread to more countries like Algeria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen. When the protest struck Libya, its security fought back with military force. Gaddafi basically declared war on his own people. The United Nations delegitimized Gaddafi as a ruler and the Libyan people wanted him out of power. The United States, the world’s superpower, hesitated to intervene. America kept its head down during this crisis to work on nation building. It also did not want to get into more “military entanglements.” (Song, 2016). The Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert Gates, stated that NATO would only intervene if, “if there is a demonstrable need, a sound legal basis and strong regional support’ for military action.” After reading this, I believe that the United States ultimately got involved in the Libyan crisis to further their own interest. America got involved in the Libya crisis also because their European allies from NATO wanted it to. The intervention was even considered legitimate through NATO. European allies also wanted the intervention in Libya to be an example to the world that NATO can intervene in the name of humanitarian issues. (Song, 2016). NATO influenced U.S. foreign policy since it was already in Libya. Other NATO members were confused as to why the United States did not intervene at the beginning of the crisis. America needed to go into Libya to keep its image as world’s superpower. Second, the United States’ War in Afghanistan was fought from 1999-2018. It was started in order to destroy al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the two groups’ affiliation with Afghanistan. After the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center, President Bush called for a “War on Terror.” In 2002, Bush requested a reconstruction of the government in Afghanistan, similar to the Marshall Plan.
The new government was called Kabul. The United States set up a plan for the remodeling and called for provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs). These teams were given to NATO to take over. (cfr.org). In 2003, NATO was given leadership of International Security Assistance Force Mission (ISAF) from the UN. (Hoehn, 2010). This was the first time NATO was involved somewhere outside of Europe. Since the United States is the most powerful NATO member, when NATO is leading something then so is the United States. The United States was able to work towards its foreign policy goal through NATO.
NATO and President Trump: Present Day
This year, President Trump has neglected NATO’s importance and is not acting as a leader would. From the beginning of NATO, the United States and its president has had the leadership role in this organization. European leaders and their citizens are frowning upon America because of Trump’s doubt. At this point in time, NATO needs it leader now more than ever. NATO is still trying to contain Russia and keep the peace in Europe. NATO is also still present in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Its forces roam the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and more seas in Europe. NATO is even helping the European Union with their migration crisis. All of this shows how important NATO is to keep the peace. It is easy to see why Europe is upset with NATO’s leadership. The United States’ president is calling NATO “obsolete”. (Burns, belfercenter.org, 2018). At the last NATO Summit meeting, he would not promise the uphold article 5 of the treaty. Article 5 is the most important article of the NATO treaty. It says that each member will come to the defense if another member is in danger or is attacked. He even showed doubt when asked if he would help Montenegro since it was once suffered a Russian coup. Trump is looking to cut defense spending and any money that does not directly benefit the United States.
Other world leaders are scared and have no idea how Trump would react if there was a conflict with Russia. It is very upsetting to hear this news about the president of the world superpower. The United States leadership is needed in NATO. If the United States pulled out of the NATO alliance, Europe would be in a crisis. Russia would most likely try to compromise European governments and try to spread their ideologies with the East. Congress should try to change Trump’s mindset towards NATO and to restore the United States leadership. There is currently a legislation waiting to be passed saying that Congress would be to approve a withdrawal from NATO. (Burns, belfercenter.org, 2018). The mindset and decision of one person should not be able to pull the United States out of a 70-year-old alliance. NATO is just as important for European security as it is for American security.
CONCLUSION
The United States is one of the most powerful states in the international system. Its foreign policy has a large influence on the world. One of the United States’ most influence foreign policies was becoming a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. Throughout this whole paper, liberalism and its key principles were kept in mind. Liberalism would support the idea of cooperation among states. In this paper, we examined the United States’ role in NATO as its primary leader. This helps keep the balance of power and the status quo in the international system. Over the years, NATO’s purposes and goals have evolved. It is primarily a security and defense organization. NATO started out as a defense for the Soviet Union to make sure it could not build its empire. In the NATO treaty, the fifth article is the framework for the organization. It stresses that every member will defend each other if they are in danger. The reader was able to see examples of how NATO influences U.S. foreign policy through Kosovo, Norway, Libya, and Afghanistan. NATO is not only necessary for European security but also United States security. This is why it is very important that the president does not continue to belittle NATO and its functions. Currently, President Donald does not see the importance of NATO and thought about leaving the alliance. As a major super power, the United States not only as a moral obligation to its own citizens but the rest of the world. Leaving the NATO alliance would cause chaos and be detrimental to Europe.