FREE ESSAY ON HOW HAS NATO SURVIVED THE COLD WAR

HOW HAS NATO SURVIVED THE COLD WAR

The latter half of the twentieth century has been dominated by the Cold War and the
actions and events surrounding it. During this period different alliances and treaties
were formed and many of these were institutionalized. One such alliance was the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This organization was set up by the Northern
Atlantic Western Powers to combat the Eastern Soviet threat. Today however NATO still
exists and plays an active role in international relations. The question asked then is
why after the Soviet Threat has dispersed an organization that was set up with the sole
purpose of defeating the Soviets, is still persisting. 
NATO was formed on the 4th of April 1949 with an alliance of twelve independent nations
committed to defence and security. Between 1952 and 1982 four more nations joined and
three more in March 1999. The original alliance was formed with the purpose of stopping
Soviet expansion in Europe, with the United States as the main driving force. With the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequential end of the Cold War it may be asked
why has NATO survived and still plays an active and influential role in European
interstate politics.
NATO has a definite reason for still continuing on in Europe. According to Michael Ruhle
(Senior Planning Officer, Policy Planning and Speechwriting Section of NATO's Political
Affairs Division) NATO has changed from a singular-purpose organization to a
multi-purpose institution, working together to create a more benign strategic
environment. Mr. Ruhle argues that NATO is contributing to the emerging Euro-Atlantic
security architecture. It is not really an institution but an architect. The architecture
being a series of key political processes that shape the strategic environment, the
European integration process, the evolution of Russia, the development of transatlantic
relations, and the evolution of crisis management in the Euro-Atlantic area. NATO can be
seen to be an institution aiming at peace and security within Europe.
There are other alliances than NATO that have become or are multi-purpose institutions.
This can be seen through the EU, with its enlargement operation and its designs for
Russia. Also the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in defusing
minority obstacles in Europe, overseeing elections in Bosnia and working with an
agreement in Kosovo. NATO, according to Mr. Ruhle is however, unique as only it can offer
coherency in bringing about these processes. 
The NATO website offers an interesting perspective on the reasons for NATO's existence.
Today following the end of the Cold War and of the division of Europe, the Alliance has
been restructured to enable it to participate in the development of cooperative security
structures for the whole of Europe. It has also transformed its political and military
structures in order to adapt them to peacekeeping and crisis management tasks undertaken
in cooperation with countries which are not members of the Alliance and with other
international organizations. Its peace plans and structures includes the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council (NACC), replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and
the Partnership for Peace (PfP).
However there is a different way of looking at the persistence of on organization such as
NATO in contemporary international relations. Stephen Walt argues that alliances that
persist are a result of hegemonic leadership, preserving credibility, domestic politics
and elite manipulation, the impact of institutionalization and ideological solidarity,
shared identities and security communities. A strong driving force behind an alliance
will sustain it even after the immediate threat has gone, especially if that force is
willing to bear the costs of the alliance and its purposes. The hegemonic power within
the alliance must be strongly committed to preserving and even expanding the
relationship. They must also be stronger than any in the alliance that may no longer wish
to participate or contribute.
To survive the alliance must be a symbol of credibility and resolve. Nations may be
unwilling to pull out of an alliance in case an opponent or another ally may see this
move as a lack of resolve. Walt argues that US involvement in Bosnia was a result of the
fear that no response would create further suspicion on NATO's role and future, rather
than a genuine care for the Bosnian people. Alliances have also been known to survive
because of groups within a state are interested in the continuation of a particular
alliance. In the case of NATO, there has been active support for NATO enlargement by
Polish-Americans.
Walt argues that the higher the level of institutionalization there is the harder it
becomes to break up an alliance. Mr. Ruhle calls this bureaucratic inertia. In a highly
bureaucratic alliance there is a group of people who obviously don't want the alliance to
break up. NATO is a good example of this as support stems from former NATO officials,
defence intellectuals, military officers, journalists and policy analysts. All who have
addressed the issues facing Euro-Atlantic cooperation and conflict. Coupled with this is
that a highly institutionalized organization may indeed provide the necessary
capabilities, that would be useful in the future. Especially in the area of cost. NATO
can build on its foundations of cooperation began in the cold war and encourage continued
relationships in the Contemporary International System.
When two nations share common political and social values and objectives, an alliance may
be easier to persist, even after the original rationale is gone. Karl Deutsch argued that
forming a security community rested on compatible values, expectations of economic gain,
a wide range of mutual transactions, broad elite networks and high levels of social
communication. 
As a summary, the reasons NATO still exists differ according to perceptions. According to
NATO, it is continued because of its ability to contribute to the emerging Euro-Atlantic
security architecture. However, it can be argued that NATO persists because of its nature
as an organization. Organizations are not easy to break up especially one as large and
influential as NATO, plus it does provide a system of communication that can encourage
further cooperation and peace within Europe.