NATO Expansion
Is NATO America’s New Tool

POL 300

March 12, 2010

NATO Expansion
Is NATO America’s New Tool

After serving two tours one of them had a combined consecutive tour length of six and one half years, I never realized how close I was to NATO headquarters located in Brussels Belgium. After being deployed to Bosnia Herzegovina and realizing the role NATO was playing gave me a new found understanding of its mission. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization known as NATO was formed in response to the threat Western Democracies encountered from the spreading influence of communism in the post World War II era.
Currently NATO has 28 nations who have aligned themselves in the organization, which has seen its share of good and bad times. During the immediate period up until the cold war era NATO was a driving force for peace efforts between countries and states. After the President Reagan’s historical proclamation on June 12, 1987 while speaking to the people in West Berlin, at the Brandenburg Gate. His speech is considered by many to be the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism. The wall actually was torn down during November 9-11, 1989, reuniting families who were once separated by the wall.
This event, even though a joyous occasion begin the slow demise of what NATO stood for. What would be the next step for NATO now that the Cold War was ending and the reality that communism’s spread was significantly diminished to a meager memory? The resurgence of NATO would be brought back to life with vigor as the United States and the world as a whole, dealt with the aftermath of the attack. Former President George W. Bush, while addressing the audience at the NATO summit in Prague a little over a year after the 9-11 attacks spoke on NATO’s expansion. He focus his speech on justifying why NATO expansion is necessary, while with precision enounced and edict against then Iraqi dictator and leader Sadam Hussein. Bush’s edict was that the United States would enforce voluntarily or by force the goal of disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Bush’s speech appeared to be a pre-war preparation speech to the NATO and the world by eluding that “And because many threats to NATO members come from outside of Europe, NATO forces must be organized to operate outside of Europe. When forces were needed quickly in Afghanistan, NATO’s options were limited. We must build new capabilities and we must strengthen our will to use those capabilities.” (NATO America’s Most Important Global Relationship) However his speech did not go unnoticed, Critics complained that NATO has turned into an instrument of the United States. According to Editor Irene Marr of GlobalSecurity.org, Mostly liberal and left-leaning in NATO suggest that the alliance had been relegated to America’s “toolbox.” Their chief complaint was that the United States had taken advantage of the Prague summit to “lobby” allies to support the campaign against Iraq. She states that some of the parties echoed Cairo’s charge that NATO was nothing more than a “political garage to be used, whenever necessary, by the United States.” She also indicates that some of the editorials reflected Europe’s sense of inferiority, that NATO is nothing without the United States. They also lamented that Europe’s failure to speak with one voice left it without the capacity to influence Washington. Others, including a Brazilian writer, held that NATO suffered from an identity crisis. Moscow’s reformist Izvestiya stated that NATO members have yet to decide what they are, U.S partners or an alternative to U.S. hegemony.
Some may believe that NATO’s role has become a somewhat useful toolbox. Jack Vanempten (De Financieel-Economische Tijd Nov. 21, 2002) states “More and more the Americans view NATO as a useful toolbox. Depending on their needs, troops can be deployed to stop conflicts when they start or exercise control. Just like the United Nations is being pushed into a secondary role, NATO seems to become an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Every criticism on the United States triggers a grumpy response… The American President is clearly heading for one goal: A war against Iraq. His statements in Prague leave little to the imagination. For the rest of the world the United Nations Resolution on the arms inspection in Iraq is a last chance for Iraq. For the United States it is only an obligatory diplomatic intermission. Bush does not need NATO for this plans regarding Iraq. He will choose his partners in function of their loyalty and obedience. AS a faithful dog the British are putting their troops on alert.” Another sign of the consensus in thought regarding the United States using NATO as it’s personal toolbox comes from Editorialist Che Anoma who write in the (Yaoundé- based pro-opposition English language bi- weekly post November 22, 2002) “ Whereas NATO leaders have a common agenda, Bush has a personal agenda. He hopes to enlist the support of the seven Eastern European countries for a possible military attack on Iraq, in case the latter defies the new UN resolution. Even though Iraq has pledged to comply with the tough UN resolution, George Bush, probably because of previous experiences, does not seem to have faith in the Iraqi leadership. The Bush administration strongly believes that Saddam Hussein’s acceptance of weapons inspectors is a ploy and as time goes on he will relapse to his paroxysm of erratic decision making about the inspectors.” The liberal Guardian (November 19, 2002) "The NATO meeting will focus primarily not on the long-anticipated decision to admit seven new east European members, but on a Bush administration to transform NATO into an alliance tasked with fighting WMD proliferation and terrorism.... Despite surprisingly little public debate, Prague is expected to approve the plan. The main overarching argument in favor is that this rededication of NATO to George Bush's 'war on terror' will give it a relevance it has lacked since the cold war's end.... But the disadvantages for Europe are serious. A green light in Prague will inevitably be seen as a political endorsement of Mr. Bush's aggressive global security strategy.... Such free-range militarism may quickly come into conflict with the United Nations system, collective European interests and, perhaps, European security priorities such as Balkan peacekeeping. The basic, unresolved issue remains a united Europe's long term need to provide for its own defense and security, in concert with the U.S. perhaps, but not under its direction." From these editors readings and many others who may have attended and or heard President Bush’s speech to NATO in Prague it appears evident that this was one of the platforms the Bush administration utilized to promote their ultimate agenda to go to war with Iraq. This may give credence to the argument that NATO’s role has truly changed. The Bush Administration may have set the precedence for NATO to become an unwilling pawn in the biding of the United States. Instead of being a multinational alliance, it may well truly lose its identity to become nothing more than a multinational toolbox for the United States.

References

PRAGUE SUMMIT: NATO REINVENTED FOR NEW THREAT AND AS 'TOOL' FOR U.S. (November 2002)
Retrieved March 12, 2010 http://www.globalsecurity.org NATO America’s Most Important Global Relationship (November 2002)
Retrieved March 12, 2010 http://usinfo.state.gov
Robert Longley (About.Com 2010) Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The beginning of the end of the Cold War
Retrieved March 12, 2009 http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/teardownwall.htm