Theme
The future of NATO in the
context of European security nowadays is considered to get blurred. Taking into
consideration a lot of developments on the international arena, the role of
NATO requires rethinking as well as security studies needs redefining.
Summary
This article deals with
tracing the modification of NATO’s role in the contemporary world. For the time
being, when the erosion of national boundaries becomes an usual thing and world
meets a lot of challenges on the global level, security institution needs
refreshing and their concepts requires rethinking. Much attention is paid to
modification of the NATO’s role since the crisis in and around Ukraine. Russian
aggression amid the Ukrainian aspirations to join the Alliance has revealed new
sides of ongoing security guarantees. Also the nature of relations between the U.S.
and Europe has been touched upon for hinting the possible way of their
transformation and converting in more successful and effective
collaboration.
Analysis
Rapid changes at the
international arena has entailed the issue of transformation relating to
multilateral security institutions. Several institutions, trying to accommodate
to new circumstances, have just withered away and their functions have been
taken over by other actors of international relations. This statement applies
to the Western European Union. Other organizations such as the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, have bumped into a menacing problem
relating to its ability to survive in new circumstances not losing its
effectiveness. Consequently, the major question gradually frequently raised is
whether these organizations have a future and how they can settle all the
challenges of the contemporary world?
Although at the end of
the Cold War a lot of scholars predicted that the North Atlantic Alliance will
virtually die out according to the loss of its enemy, NATO is still regarded by
international community as a cornerstone of security in the western hemisphere.
This case spawned a puzzle for researchers, who claimed that basis for
collaboration in the framework of NATO was no longer there. To answer this
question plenty of scientists turned to “constructivist approaches” to
international relations, which applies to the necessity to take into
consideration the role of principles, norms and identity in order to put across
the persistence of NATO.1 From this point of view
NATO is considered to be not only the military alliance held together by a crux
of a common extrinsic threat, but first of all the community of liberal
democratic values and principles. Taking into account NATO’s gradually founded
close institutional ties with former enemies of the Warsaw Pact, involving
Russia, expanding its membership and redefining security, the statements in the
spirit of constructivist approaches appear extremely convincing.
Read also: NATO Space policy: Integrated response to incoming threats
On the other hand, one of
the most relevant criteria to sort out the longevity of any international
organization, in particular military alliances, is whether the organization is
attractive for the states that stay beyond its structures. 2 Furthermore, the
necessity to enter or withdraw the particular organization can be sponsored by
the unique structure of the system of international relations. In that case, we
should regard the situation from the neo-realistic point of view. It means that
national interests of states are the top priorities for them whilst their
behavior is subjugated to the particular rules of the system of international
relations.
Consequently, bearing in
mind that the future of NATO depends upon the ability to answer the questions
of whether the Alliance is still the center of gravity and whether it is still
so attractive, it will be relevant to expose some more points for carrying out
the deep analysis of this dilemma:
1.
Which ongoing issues and security challenges of
post-Cold war world are the most significant?
2.
What is the essence of the new quality in
NATO-Russia relations amid the crisis around Ukraine since 2014 and to what
extent the role of the Alliance has been modified?
3.
Is there an urgent necessity for rethinking
NATO’s security maintenance principles?
Ongoing issues and security
challenges of post-Cold War world
From the time when the
bipolar world was demolished, subdued differences and old sensitivities seemed
have the tendency to resurface. It means that the main causes of
destabilization are considered to appear as differences in wealth and
demography. Indeed, it evaporates the necessity to contribute a lot to various
military alliances, for instance NATO, and provokes all endeavors to be taken
only for accumulating economic power and social security, on the one hand. Nevertheless,
on the other hand, even established as the Alliance with thinking in strong
military-strategic terms, it can start formulating new political-economic
strategies and thanks to such modification survive in the complicated
contemporary world. When the necessity to wage Cold War was out of agenda, the
North Atlantic Alliance had to take on the new role, which was quite different
from the one that was applicable in the origins of its creation. 3
The main ongoing issue of
the post-Cold war world was that the basis of power has shifted. Military power
is not mush the indicator nor the guarantee of economic power as it used to be.
Moreover, the major security challenge was not the problem of fulfilling the
vacuum left by bipolarity and deterrence, but disappearing of the game, that
was the background for the existence of relative stability. Nuclear deterrence
was a game. In addition, as long as the players believe in it and played
according to its rules, the balance was kept, but when one of the block
vanished, the players lost enthusiasm and the taste of game.
3 It seemed that NATO had
to lose its significance when the Soviet Union disappeared from the political
map of the world. However, the Alliance did not continue to wage phantom wars
to lose its credibility, it redefined its security needs and turned it into a
political rather than a military task. For the time being, the most important
task for the Alliance is to hold the balance between political and military
aspects of its activities.
Modification of NATO’s role after the
crisis around Ukraine since 2014
The crisis within and
around Ukraine since 2014 meant a major change for NATO. At the September Wales
Summit the allies put collective defense back as the primus inter pares among NATO’s three core tasks. The other two are
considered to be crisis management and cooperative security.
4
It cannot be hidden away
that Ukraine was regarded by the West as “buffer zone” being adjacent to the
totalitarian Soviet Union. It had to become the shield against the spread of
communism. After the breakdown of the SU Ukraine became one more link of the
state chain, which wards the Russian Federation off the rest of European
countries. Turning back to the ideas of neorealists, who pay much attention to
the structural aspect of international relations, aspirations of Ukraine to
join the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be
estimated by Russia as the attempt to destroy status quo. From this point of
view, destabilization of Ukraine by Russia leads to “frozen conflict” that in
theory blocks the consolidation of a democratic, Western-oriented polity.
However, in practice the West settles into a stable configuration of ongoing
sanctions, punishing Russia for bad behavior, and such actions vice versa
foster the consolidation of European countries in the fight against Russian
aggression.
Learn more: Implications of Russia`s A2/AD capabilities in Kaliningrad for NATO security
According to the Study of
Russian-Western Strategic Interaction written by R. E. Ericsson and L. A.
Zeager the strategy based upon destabilization by Russia and sanctions by the
West in response to the aggression is the most relevant scenario, because preserving
a democratic, Western-oriented Ukraine is not worth the cost and allowing
Russia to achieve its geopolitical objectives through successful
destabilization seems be not such a bad variant.
5 Furthermore, the
conflict between Russia and Ukraine has revealed new sides of NATO structural
power. It is clear that Ukraine cannot become the member of the Alliance until
the conflict with Russia is settled, because it can cause a dangerous effect on
the Alliance. Supposing Ukraine becomes the member of NATO without full
conflict resolution in the eastern part of its territory. Then Russia may
provoke escalation of conflict and allies will be obliged to help Ukraine
according to the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (4 April 1949).
6
However, such scenario is
hardly applicable for allies. The main advantage of NATO existence is its
preemptive character. It means that those guarantees given by Member States are
the highest cost of security, which is certainly to be regarded as the
resource, not as a condition or other stable realm.
Rethinking of NATO security
maintenance principles
Collective defense is an
old-fashioned task and NATO must perform it in an environment that differs a
lot from the Cold War in security, political, economic and military terms. The
intrinsic circumstances within the Alliance and the extrinsic conditions have
changed dramatically. All this inquiries deep rethinking of NATO’s needs to
turn back collective defense in updated version. Furthermore, concentrating
only on collective defense entails neglecting attitude to the security
challenges faced by the Southern Allies. Attacks at Paris in 2015 are a
satisfied justification to consider this. The Alliance needs to maintain the
balance between collective defense and crisis management whilst not forgetting
about its third task – cooperative security.
4
Altering the pattern will
require a sustained endeavor. Over the past decade a vast array of particular
issues have been sorted out – enhancing environmental quality, bridging the gap
between the rich and the poor, limiting population growth, protecting human
rights etc. The vulnerability of societies should be estimated to a variety of
harms non-military in nature and coping with many types of political problems is
surely to be dependent upon the limitation of military instruments.
Furthermore, problems that are manageable for the time being may prove to be
far less tractable in the future. Political will and energy of NATO Member
States should not be predominately focused on military solutions to the
problems of national security of each State Member in particular, but the
nonmilitary tasks are likely to grow ever more difficult to accomplish and
dangerous to neglect.
You may be interested in: Integration of Allies’ National Cyber Effects into NATO Operations and Missions
Moreover, relations
between Europe and the United States are of great importance for the Alliance’s
future. The real problem is not the artificial concept of the division of
duties, but common actions of both transatlantic structures. If NATO in the
framework of Europe wants to promote democratic transformation worldwide, there
must be a way to pursue this mission together and in a relevant manner. If the
dividing line between security and the threat gets blurred, neither the
Alliance nor Europe in particular may ignore the needs that in the past
belonged to discretionary powers of each sovereign state.
2
Conclusions
In general, the problem
with NATO is not about the lack of power or potential, but about the lack of
effective concept that would regulate the structure of the Alliance, providing
it with relevant solutions under new circumstances. In case the tremendous
confrontation or permanent crisis occurs to become the main threat for the
international community. It is extremely important to realize that for the time
being and on the future NATO’s capacity encompasses not only Europe, but the
whole world. Consequently, taking into consideration that the U.S. remain the
superpower in the framework of NATO, it becomes evident that Europe must keep
the interest of the America.
Besides, the Alliance
needs transformation. This transformation must not be perceived as a single
event, but it must become a permanent and long-term process of adjustment and
addressing new threats, circumstances, needs and tasks.
Author: Anastasia Vozovych, Senior Fellow on Strategic Studies in Think Tank ADASTRA
References:
1 Helene
Sjurse. “On the Identity of NATO”. International
Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944)
2
Adam Daniel Rotfeld. “The future of NATO. Sicherheit und Frieden (S+F)”/ Security and Peace
Vol.
25, No. 1, Themenschwerpunkt: Perspektiven Europäischer Sicherheits- und
Verteidigungspolitik (2007)
3
Gün Kut. “The future of NATO and
Southern European Security”. Il Politico
Vol. 56, No. 1 (157) (Gennaio-Marzo 1991)
4
Claudia Major. “NATO and European Security: Back to the Roots?” 2015
Published
by: Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) (Dec. 1, 2015)
5
Richard E. Ericson and Lester A. Zeager. Ukraine
Crisis 2014: A Study of RussianWestern Strategic Interaction
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/peps.2015.21.issue-2/peps-2015-0006/peps-2015-0006.pdf
6
The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949. https://www.nato.int/cps/ua/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm