UK and NATO

10 Key excerpts on "UK and NATO"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Future NATO

  Adapting to New Realities

  • John Andreas Olsen(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  NATO’s longevity has resulted not only from its members’ need to confront a clear common threat, but also from a strong sense of political community and the wider shared interest that emerged concurrently, generated not only by the Soviet threat but also by a broader set of shared democratic values. NATO’s survival rests on the endurance of this sense of community among states that see themselves as ‘Western’. If ‘the West’ were to become an obsolete concept (splintering, for example, along national or continental lines), it is difficult to see NATO’s core commitments surviving for long. Broader partnerships, therefore, are the foundation of NATO’s continuing relevance.

  _______________

  1 European Union External Action, ‘EU-NATO Cooperation: Factsheets’, 11 June 2019, <https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/28286/EU-NATO%20cooperation%20-%20Factsheets >, accessed 26 January 2020. See also EU and NATO, ‘Fourth Progress Report on the Implementation of the Common Set of Proposals Endorsed by NATO and EU Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017’, 17 June 2019, <https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/190617-4th-Joint-progress-report-EU-NATO-eng.pdf >, accessed 18 January 2020.

  The Western Ecosystem

  The immediate origins of NATO lie in the wartime alliance between the US and the British Empire and Commonwealth, forged in successive summits between President Franklin D Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The integrated command structure that oversaw the Normandy landings in 1944, and the subsequent Allied victory over Nazi Germany, became the progenitor and model for the integrated command structure that NATO adopted after 1952 and which remains in place today. The special military relationship between the US and the UK continues to be a key pillar of the Western security system, supporting and reinforcing cooperation at an Alliance-wide level. Other nations that provided important contributions to the war effort, including those represented at the time by President Charles de Gaulle’s French government-in-exile and volunteer personnel from Poland and other occupied countries, also trace their initial involvement in the Western defence alliance to this period.

  This wartime alliance also helps explain the genesis of NATO’s current security relationships with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All three states made important contributions to the war effort, sending large numbers of forces and considerable financial assistance to the UK during its struggle against the Nazis. After the war, Canada became a founding member of NATO, and to this day continues to deploy significant forces for the defence of Europe. All three countries are also members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing relationship, which remains a key element of the wider Western security system, helping to build common understanding of the security landscape and, until now, largely impervious to political perturbations.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Kennedy, Johnson and NATO

  Britain, America and the Dynamics of Alliance, 1962-68

  • Andrew Priest(Author)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  1 ANGLO-AMERICAN DEFENCE RELATIONS IN NATO

  During the cold war the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom was central to NATO. For the most part, shared political and military ideologies shaped the North Atlantic Alliance from its inception. Although there were serious disagreements and some divergence of aims and methods, developing mutual Anglo-American suspicion towards the government of the Soviet Union from the late 1940s gave rise to a post-war military coalition between Britain and America that helped to create and drive the alliance, as well as operate as a bilateral link within it.

  Recent scholarship has suggested that the important role of Britain and the US in the formation of NATO should not be over-estimated.1 Such scholarship emphasizes the multi-polar nature of the conflict and the need to see both the British and American contributions within the context of other allies and these allies’ impact on strategy and policy formation. This is undoubtedly correct, but it should not ignore the huge contribution of Britain and the United States. The influence of these two allies was a result of America’s domination of the nascent Western sphere and the re-establishment of its close relationship with Britain during the early cold war. Britain’s influence occurred because of its continued role as a power with global interests and in spite of its weak economic position in the aftermath of Second World War. Indeed, Ritchie Ovendale suggests that the British, and particularly post-War Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, were responsible for ‘educating the Americans’ to the Soviet threat in the years after 1945 and were thus crucial in the formation of the alliance that would stand against them. Ovendale argues that President Harry Truman was unprepared for the Soviet threat to Europe and was making plans to reduce long-term American commitments between 1945 and 1949, when NATO was formed.2

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Constraints and Adjustments in British Foreign Policy (Routledge Revivals)

  • Michael Leifer(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  IV

  Britain’s Defence Policy and NATO

  Stephen Kirby

  One of the most persistent problems of post-war defence planning in Britain has been to determine the size and the nature of the military contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The difficulty arises in the main because Britain’s involvement in NATO and her military commitments in other parts of the world have been very different and often incompatible. In NATO , Britain is bound by treaty to provide and maintain certain specified and substantial military forces, and also to relinquish some independence over their control. The interests her troops help to defend and the strategy they employ are decided by a collective process, in which Britain has by no means a controlling voice; nor is Britain’s military contribution the most vital for the defence of NATO ’s interests. Outside Europe, Britain has retained – if decreasingly so-military commitments that have been highly valued because they have been linked with Britain’s imperial past, and because they have demonstrated an independent British world role. These commitments – in South-East Asia, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere – have been more flexible than those towards NATO , but in the past have involved British troops in combat situations which have often demanded substantial reinforcement. Successive British governments have had to weigh the importance of a vital, but shared and interdependent, security interest in Europe against her more independent interests elsewhere, and they have had to decide how best to meet the constant and substantial military demands of the NATO commitment and the widely variable and more open-ended demands of her military commitments outside Europe. This essay seeks to examine the way in which involvement in NATO has affected formulation and the execution of British defence policy, and in particular to assess the extent to which the NATO

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  NATO Reconsidered

  Is the Atlantic Alliance Still in America's Interest?

  • Wesley B. Truitt(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 7

  NATO’s Relevance to the United States in Today’s Changing World Order

  “There is no arc of history that ensures that America’s free political and economic system will automatically prevail. Success or failure depends upon our actions.”1

  President Donald J. Trump

  The United States is the only global superpower. It has economic interests in virtually every part of the world. Its security interests mirror those economic interests. It also has the material means to safeguard those interests. No other country today has these characteristics because America is the wealthiest country on earth and the most powerful.

  The United States has fought aggression, liberated conquered people, secured peace, and fostered the security and prosperity of other nations for one hundred years. While so doing, it has spent its own blood and treasure, taken no territory, and seized no property of others. It has established and supported international institutions that foster peace and security, open markets, economic development, democratic values, and human rights.

  Among those institutions is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It is an American invention intended to secure the peace and safety of democracies first in Western Europe and later throughout most of Europe. It achieved its purpose. Those democracies have grown safe and prosperous under the security of NATO, backed by the power of the United States.

  Given NATO’s peaceful victory over the Soviet Union in 1991, the question has been asked, why was NATO continued and not dissolved at that time?

  Harvard Professor Stephen Walt asks the same question, “Having won the Cold War and achieved a position of primacy unseen since the Roman Empire, why did U.S. leaders decide to maintain a military establishment that dwarfed all others and expand an already far-flung network of allies, client states, military bases, and security commitments?” Walt further asks, “Instead of greeting the defeat of its principal rival as an opportunity to reduce America’s global burdens, why did both Democrats and Republicans embark on an ill-considered campaign to spread democracy, markets, and other liberal values around the world?” Walt’s answer: “Instead of pursuing a more restrained grand strategy, U.S. leaders opted for liberal hegemony because the foreign policy community believes spreading liberal values is both essential for U.S. security and easy to do.”2

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Understanding NATO in the 21st Century

  Alliance Strategies, Security and Global Governance

  • Graeme P. Herd, John Kriendler(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  1  NATO in an age of uncertainty

  Structural shifts and transatlantic bargains?

  Graeme P. Herd and John Kriendler

  Introduction

  The future of NATO, for so long the cornerstone of the transatlantic partnership, has profound implications for the cooperative or competitive nature of transatlantic relations and thus for regional and global security. On the eve of NATO’s Chicago “Implementation Summit” (20–21 May 2012) a range of influential policymakers and commentators argued for the need for NATO to undertake internal reform and adapt to a changing strategic context. Jamie Shea, NATO’s deputy assistant secretary general for Emerging Security Challenges, contended that “By adding ‘smart planning and smart thinking’ to ‘smart defense,’ NATO can best survive the age of austerity intact and be ready for the world that awaits beyond it.”1 Charles A. Kupchan, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, noted that Ivo H. Daalder, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, has argued that the Alliance is more needed than ever, reminding us that NATO heads of state declared that NATO “remains an essential source of stability in an unpredictable world.”2 NATO’s Operation Unified Protector in Libya has been declared a “victory”, and NATO moves towards “transition” in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

  Alliances are defined as “an association to further the common interests of the members; specifically: a confederation of nations by treaty” and “a league or compact for mutual support or common action.”3 Mutual support or common action can cover a lot of ground, most often focused on security. States that face common threats or challenges have a shared interest in responding through a common effort, supported by collective organizational structures and procedures. There are of course costs of membership in international organizations, including alliances, in terms of constraint on freedom of action and also political and financial costs. But rational states will join together in an alliance when the benefits appear to outweigh the costs. For NATO to survive and flourish it must advance the interests of its members. It will survive only as long as it accomplishes things allies wish at an acceptable cost.4

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Unipolarity and the Evolution of America's Cold War Alliances

  • Nigel Thalakada(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  21 2 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization This chapter seeks to show that while it began life principally as a balance of power instrument, NATO has progressively focused on management of power roles since the end of the Cold War. In effect, NATO has moved from a regional military organization designed for static defense of alliance territory to one that is globally engaged with operations and partners in practically every corner of the world. The chapter begins by looking at NATO’s Cold War balance of power roots, followed by its increasing emphasis on management of power roles – in terms of operations, capabilities, membership, and US posture – first in the immediate post-Cold War era and then in the post-9/11 period. It also considers how alliance delib- erations leading up to the 2003 Iraq War display management of power characteristics even though they did not in the end result in allied consensus. Finally, this chapter concludes with some thoughts about how management of power dynamics are also evident in the US approach to greater European integration. Cold War focus on balance of power The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949 as a commitment of mutual defense by the United States, Canada, and ten European nations. It came at the behest of the Western European powers that sought to associate the United States with their own pacts for mutual defense, beginning with the 1947 Dunkirk Treaty between Britain and France and the 1948 Brussels Pact between Britain, France, and the Benelux nations. 1 To use Geir Lundestad’s memorable phrase, America’s engagement in Europe was an “empire by invitation.” 2 The

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  International Organizations and The Rise of ISIL

  Global Responses to Human Security Threats

  • Daniel Silander, Don Wallace, John Janzekovic(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The founding responsibility of NATO was to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilizations of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law” (Kay, 2011; Sloan, 1995). NATO’s collective-defense and self-defense mandate was based on the firm acknowledgment of the requirements of the UN Charter, Article 51. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (NATO, 1949) stated that “[t]he parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” NATO’s relevance was considered by many commentators in the 1990s to be under threat, due to the collapse of the USSR (Harries, 1993; Kissinger, 1990; Mearsheimer, 1990). The NATO summits in London (1990) and Rome (1991) led to the first of many internal discussions about how and what transformations were required of the organization. Member states declared their intent to continue the collective-defense arrangement, which had strived to maintain global peace and stability, but also their willingness to reach out to post-Communist states to provide an expanded regional zone of peace and security (NATO, 1991). NATO saw an opportunity to expand its norms and values and to extend its area of influence to limit potential Russian expansionism in the future (Zelikow, 1997). Under Article 10, new member states would be obliged to safeguard NATO security through formal security partnerships with the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), and the Partner for Peace program (PfP).

  The first post-Cold War transformation was intended to adjust to a new security reality by absorbing new member states and expanding NATO’s norms and values into post-Communist territory. The second transformation of its responsibilities was triggered by the Balkan Wars of the early 1990s, which jeopardized state and human security throughout Europe. The potential escalation of war into Albania, Greece, and Turkey, in addition to refugee flows in Europe, forced the alliance into action. NATO implemented a UN arms embargo on military equipment in the Adriatic Sea, established a UNSC authorized no-fly zone, and assisted UN peacekeepers with air strikes against Bosnian Serb forces. The Dayton Peace Accord in late 1995 resulted in the establishment of the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) and Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia (North Atlantic Council, 2004). NATO was also directly involved in overseeing the disarmament of Albanian forces and the protection of international observers in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in 2001 (Larsdotter, 2012; Moore, 2007).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Security in Northern Europe

  Deterrence, Defence and Dialogue

  • John Andreas Olsen(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  6

  This chapter analyses the British perspective on security in Northern Europe by examining events, policies and attitudes that culminated in the decisions to formally advance the Northern Group within NATO and to create the JEF, alongside air- and land-force deployments in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. It briefly examines institutions alongside NATO as security and defence policy drivers for the UK today, before drawing conclusions about the decisions that future UK governments might take to maintain security in Northern Europe.

  A History of the UK and Continental Defence

  Many Britons may not actually regard themselves as Europeans. Indeed, the popular media often reflects a strained relationship between the British and their European neighbours. The relationship between the UK and continental Europe reflects a complex dynamic that few acknowledge or understand, but might be described as one in which the UK considers itself the strategic balancer that maintains the status quo on the continent. The English Channel has provided a natural physical barrier to the security concerns of the continent, and there is broad acknowledgement within the UK of the importance of the US and other Anglophone countries; the British public shows less interest in continental European political affairs than in US politics. Although connectivity – both physical through the Channel Tunnel, and economic through continental trade – has improved, this has not overcome the distinct feeling of cognitive dissonance with European thinking and activities. Yet the UK has always played a role in European affairs, whether specifically related to defence and security or at the higher level of great-power politics. The Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU Commission so far indicate this will continue. To understand this decidedly peculiar relationship, and thus why the UK has decided to invest in an alternative structure, it is vital to reflect on the history of the UK–Europe conundrum.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Contemporary European Security

  • David J. Galbreath, Jocelyn Mawdsley, Laura Chappell(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  4 NATO and the transatlantic community, 1949–2019 James Sperling Introduction The North Atlantic Treaty (1949) forged an unbreakable security bond between Western Europe and North America. The Treaty marked a historic departure in US diplomacy. President Harry S. Truman, in committing the US to the defence of Europe, ignored President George Washington’s admonition that the United States should not enter into any ‘entan- gling alliances’. The transatlantic alliance, and its eventual institutionalisation as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was not only the essential component of the US grand strategy of containment, but also represented a unilateral American security guarantee that made possible the post-war political and economic recovery of Western Europe, legitimised the long-term stationing of American military forces on European soil, and provided a mate- rial foundation for US leadership of the West. The creation of NATO, its ability to sustain a transatlantic consensus on common geo- political interests and aspirational foreign policy goals, and the creation of a transatlantic community of like-minded states, was not foreordained. In fact, NATO was beset during the Cold War (1947–1990) by serial crises of confidence over the credibility of the American nuclear guarantee, episodic fears of abandonment or entrapment by Europeans and Americans alike, and an inability to strike a balance between American leadership and the European desire for greater equality within the alliance (see Thies, 2009). With the end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union, tensions within the Atlantic Alliance became, if anything, more pronounced. The sudden absence of an existen- tial threat left the alliance bereft of purpose. NATO, a compulsory alliance during the Cold War without the option of exit for Europeans or North Americans, became, in 1990, a vol- untary alliance with one.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The United States, NATO, and a New Multilateral Relationship

  • Frank R. Douglas(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  7 The New U.S. Relationship with NATO The United States’ relationship with NATO’s European allies during the Cold War was one of American dominance. This dominance was over a military organization with a large command structure that controlled a potentially large military force, concerned with a static defensive posture against a single potent enemy, the Soviet Union. NATO was a military organization focused only on the defense of Western Europe. During the period 1989–91, the security environment in Europe had dramatically changed. No longer was there a threatening Soviet Union, or even a Soviet Union or a Warsaw Pact. The original reason for the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was gone, and many thought the days of NATO were surely numbered too. NATO survived the decade of the 1990s and has since crossed into the twenty-first century. Why? NATO’s survival was due to creating for itself new functions, new flexibilities, new command structures, and new internal relationships for the new strategic realities facing NATO’s members in the post–Cold War world. This substantial transforma- tion of NATO was not complete by the end of the 1990s, but it was well on its way. Whether the new transformed NATO will really realize the goals and capabilities it has set for itself remains to be seen. Another point of NATO’s survival, besides its structural and strategic overhaul, was that it was in the interests of the United States and Europe to save NATO, and effort was devoted to this end. The 1990s were a period of a reduced military threat in Europe, reduced defense budgets, and reduced military forces for the United States and other NATO allies. Saving NATO was a paramount objective of the Bush administration. Keeping NATO was also in the interests of NATO’s European mem- bers at least for some time into the future, as it was more cost-effective to keep NATO than to build some new military alliance.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book