U.S. & NATO.   Term Paper ID:26453 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Analyzes changing relationship after end of Cold War, focusing on assessment of intervention in Yugoaslavia.... More...

11 Pages / 2475 Words 17 sources, 31 Citations, APA Format $44.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Analyzes changing relationship after end of Cold War, focusing on assessment of intervention in Yugoaslavia. Paper Introduction: UNITED STATES AND NATO This research paper re-assesses the role of the United States in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Its thesis is that the United States should: (1) avoid becoming further en-tangled in the current NATO offensive against Yugoslavia, in particular not to become involved in a NATO ground war against Serbian forces, and help accomplish a negotiated settlement of that crisis; and (2) thereafter, confine its support to future NATO military actions which go beyond defense against attack on NATO countries to the provision of military and technical assist-ance. The United States should reduce its role in NATO for the following reasons: (1) the original threats which induced the united states to playa leading role in the creation of NATO have substantially diminish Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The expansion of NATO to the borders of the former Soviet Union was anunwise step. National Review,pp. However, the GermanForeign Minister, Joschka Fischer, says that his Greens Party, which ispart of the present coalition government, is divided between those "whobelieve that Germany must never again participate in armed conflict, andthose who believe Germans can never again stand aside and watch genocide"(Marshall, 1999, 25 April, p. Americantroop withdrawals should administer the shock necessary to induce theEuropeans to look after their own part of the world. . Advocates of re-tainingthe alliance, such as German Kamp (1995, Spring), observed that "thehoneymoon in Russia's relations with the West is over" and that it issimple prudence for the West to keep its powder dry in the form of NATO (p.121). UNITED STATES AND NATO This research paper re-assesses the role of the United States in theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 14). 97). M3). . . A14). She said that a"new and better NATO" was "committed to meeting a wide range of threats toour shared interests and values" and acting "to ensure stability, freedomand peace in and for the entire transatlantic area" (Garthoff, p. Serious opposition to NATO andcertainly any expansion of its role, began in the early 198 s. Rodman, P. As Lord Ismay's remark indicated,fear of a resurgence of German aggressive nationalism was anotherconsideration which underlay the formation of NATO. On the left, theBritish New Statesman & Society (NATO is, 1994, 7 Jan.,) said that "relyingon NATO is a recipe at best for instability, and at worst for disaster . Runer (1995, 28 May) said that "Russia is--and willremain for a long time--too weak to threaten Eastern Europe militarily,"let alone Western Europe (p. (1995, 28 May). (1999, April 25). Steel, R. One of the factors keeping NATO alive is uncertainty over theintentions and tendencies of an unstable Russia. . . NATO's Military Intervention in Yugoslavia Except for the Vietnam War, the United States (and its Europeanallies) have undertaken major military interventions pursuant only toresolutions of the United Nations Security Council or, in the case ofKorea, General Assembly. Mandelbaum, M. Los Angeles Times, p. According toKupchan (1996, May-June), "Russia is neither interested nor capable ofmounting such a threat" because of its internal weaknesses and itspreoccupation with turmoil on its immediate borders among the former Sovietrepublics (p. (1999, 19 April). Not only is it unclear, says Kamp (1995, Spring), that "the Americanswould sacrifice New York to save Warsaw," but it is highly questionablewhether they should do so (p. what would really stirup a troublesome nationalistic, military reaction in Russia" (A, 1996, 11March, p. If it does, the questionimmediately arises whether Kosovo (or even the military defeat of Serbianforces) is a vital American national interest. A leading conservative critic of NATO, Kristol (1995, 6 Feb.), saysthat "NATO is a vast irrelevance. B7). Hillen, J. (1996, 25 November). In-depth analysis of the considerationswhich led to the creation of NATO and sustained its unity for most of its5 year old history suggests that they are no longer pre-sent and thatattempts to prop up its tottering structure or to expand its role are notconsistent with American vital interests. (1996, 11 March) U.S. Let the Americans have the headaches" (p.29). They become ruthless" (p. M2). Maynes, C. B. In 1947-1948, a series of events occurred which awakenedWestern Europeans and the United States to the threat posed by the SovietUnion. Within five years, Europe should take overthe lion's share of its own defense requirements. 29. . Unwisdom of Expanding NATO to the East. B9). 5). ForeignAffairs, 75, 92-1 4. Who now cares about NATO? 41. The ending of the Cold War placed inquestion the continuing validity of NATO's reason for existence, the Sovietmilitary threat. (1996, July-August). By then,moderating influences in Soviet foreign policy and internal weakness withinthe Soviet Union were generating strains within NATO. 122 and 124). New Statesman &Society, p. Los Angeles Times, p. Europe was prostrate economically and vulnerable to the threat ofcommunist subversion. Los Angeles Times, pp. . Los Angeles Times, pp. However, it is byno means clear that it was in the American interest to give openendedguarantees against attack to those states which NATO member-ship entails. American public opinion mayeventually demand more forceful action because, as Schwarz (1999, 15 April)points out, "something terrible . Schwarz, B. B4). 11) . Their peacekeeping and military operations inBosnia were under United Nations authority. Steel (1996, Nov.) says that"the Western Europeans, needing a bone to throw to the old Warsaw Pactnations, tell them to join NATO. Kristol, I. Lord Ismay, the British first SecretaryGeneral of NATO, said that its purpose was "to keep the Americans in, theRussians out, and the Germans down" (Rodman, 1995, 31 Jan., p. (1999, 15 April). The answer was NATO which was signed inWashington on April 4, 1949 and was ratified by the U.S. Conclusion United States membership in NATO served an indispensable role indefending Western Europe against the Soviet threat and to contain the thenperceived but actually minimal danger of a remilitarized and aggressiveGermany. Rosner (1995, May-June) says that incorporating these states into NATO and modernizing theirarmed forces would also be expensive, costing $42 billion over 1 years,according to a Rand Corporation estimate (p. N. M3 and M6. M6). Kristol (1995, 6 Feb.) said thata reunified "Germany may end up as the dominant economic power in Europe .. Rosner (1996, July-Aug.) said that after 1989, "it is timeto recognize that NATO expired" (p. It maybe in Europe's interest to pacify the Balkans, but it is hardly in theAmerican interest to get bogged down there or to risk a major confrontationwith the Russians. Runer, E. D. 9). However, on March 12, 1996, the Czech Republic,Hungary and Poland joined NATO. NATO's new mission: A'values' enforcer. A more decisive victory for NATO might beachieved by an armored assault over the plains south of Hungary andCroatia, but the risks of a wider war are apparent. The Soviet threat, however, heldtogether the Atlantic Alliance until the era of Mikhail Gorbachev. According toKamp, Hungary recently refused to cooperate with NATO's imposition of a'nofly' zone in Bosnia because of its concern over the Hungarian minorityin Serbia (pp. As members of the UN, NATO'smembers are bound by the UN Charter, which, except for regional defensearrangements permitted under Article 51 thereof, are bound not to use forceunilaterally to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations. News &World Report, p. 39). M6).Albright sought to justify NATO's actions on moral grounds. Military might. . . B7. After the end of the First World War, America withdrew intoisolation. the Europe of 1949 is not the Europe of 1999. In launching these attacks, NATO has not only greatly expanded itrole beyond it original defensive purposes to one of a moral crusade, ithas also brought into question the effectiveness and credibility of thealliance by the way in which it has conducted its campaign againstYugoslavia. To mollify the Russians, NATO in 1994offered them consultative participation in its Partnership for Peace, fromwhich the Russians withdrew once NATO began to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999. Moreover, Kamp says that "the admission of new members wouldexacerbate NATO's difficulty in arriving at common positions" (p. TheUnited States already finds itself partially hamstrung by squabbling anddifferences within the Western alliance itself. Reviving the west. 122). W. NATO provided anumbrella under which American participation would assuage West Europeanfears of Germany and add German strength to the anti-soviet effort. By intervening militarily there andelsewhere in Yugoslavia, NATO has violated interntional law and set anunfortunate precedent, the consequences of which Garthoff (1999, 11 April)explains, as follows: If one group of states can assume rights of unilateral military intervention vis-à-vis other members of the international community, so can any other (p. Recently,Germany has sent peace-keeping forces to Cambodia, Somalia, and Bosnia andsupports the current NATO offensive against Yugoslavia. NewRepublic, p. Let it slide into obsolescence . NATO to serve [its] own 'interests and values' rather than those ofthe world community" (p. Kosovo is apart of the Yugoslav Federation. Luttwak (1999, 28 April) says "fightingwithout a strategy for victory, NATO's survival as an effective allianceseems much less certain" (p. Worth recalling in thatrespect is the French refusal to let United States' aircraft to overfly;their territory on the 1986 bombing raid on Libya, Italian objections toAmerican attempts to arrest Arab terrorists at a NATO base anc the Frenchdemand that the Europeans be placed in charge of NATO's Southern Commandwhich includes the U.S. A23). His view is that the alliance should beallowed to die, rather than "trying to breathe new life into an outdatedsecurity arrangement" (p. 41). The recent expansion of NATO membership to include the threeEastern European republics was a strategic error which should not becompounded by moving NATO's umbrella of defense protection further East.NATO has unwisely sought to justify its continued existence by its illegaland unwarranted military intervention in Yugoslavia. M6). . 121). Los Angeles Times, p.B4. (1994, 7 January). TheCold War is over, and with it the phase of world history --the Europeanphase" (p. A23. Twice in this century, Americanmilitary intervention was necessary to counter the threat of Germanhegemony. M2 and M6. (1995, 31 January). B9. Rosner, J. A 14. TheUnited States should reduce its role in NATO for the following reasons: (1)the original threats which induced the united states to playa leading rolein the creation of NATO have substantially diminished for the foreseeablefuture; (2) the current expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and regionalconflicts in the Balkans violates international law and runs counter to thevital national security interests of the United States; (3) NATO's on-goingmilitary campaign against Yugoslavia is ill-conceived and is likely toinvolve the united States indefinitely in a protracted conflict and highlyuncertain outcome; (4) faced with more pressing priorities elsewhere, theUnited States should induce the Europeans to assume primary responsibilityfor their own security. Whatever happens in Russia, however, it is clear that the Russianthreat to Western Europe, if one still exists, is remote. Foreign Policy, 98, 116-131. It should thengradually turn over to the Europeans primary responsibility for their owndefense. 35). A1994 poll of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations revealed that only 32percent of Americans polled support Poland against a Russian invasion(Rosner, 1996, July-Aug., p. The hard questions. . Will NATO survive?National Review, p. Kupchan, C. Throughout history, multinational military alliances have tended to beunstable and to break down when the threats which gave them birthdiminished. A14). Germany's recordas a democracy since 1949 shows that it no longer represents a threat toEuropean or world peace. Los Angeles Times, pp. 35. The United States shouldwithin that period withdraw most of its troops from Europe, keeping thereonly air and naval forces to support the allies on a gradually diminishingbasis. . Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty anarmed attack on any of the original signatories (the Brussles Treaty fiveplus the United States, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, and Portugal), wasan attack on all and required them to act in their common defense. happens to Americans when they makewar. 38-4 . (1996, 1 January). NATO failed to mount an effective threat of ground action in theinitial stages of the war but apparently has under considera-tion theemployment of ground troops to end the conflict. The German Constitutional Court hasruled that Germany could accept obligations arising out of itsinternational security commitments (Kamp, 1995, Spring, p. Franco-German rivalry is now a relic of the past. Foreign Affairs, 75, 9-17. The United States should resist the temptation to becomeinvolved in an endless ground war in Yugoslavia and arrange a diplomaticsolution to the Kosovo problem. Yet Europe collectively spends about 2.2% of its gross domestic product on defense, one-third less than the United States (p. According toHillen (1997, 3 June), America's ability to meet all of its defensecommitments, especially its combat readiness, has been impaired by thesteady decline in American defense expenditures since 1989 (p. Thealliance withstood severe strains, such as the rift caused by the Frenchwithdrawal from the NATO command structure in 1966 and the growth ofneutralism in Europe and Germany's ostpolitik during the period of detentein the 197 s. The initial bombing attacks, 5 sorties a day during the firstweek, as compared with 1,25 bombing missions per day during the Gulf War,failed to accomplish much more than to accelerate Milosevic's plans toexpel hundreds of thousands of Albanians from Kosovo and furtherdestabilize neighboring countries. Luttwak, E. W. M6). The Europeans had begun to organize themselveseconomically with American financial assistance through the Marshall Plan.On March 17, 1948, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxem-bourg had taken the first steps toward a military alliance by signing theBrussels Treaty. Los Angeles Times, p. 13). America's leading expert on Russia in thiscentury, George Kennan, said, "I'm strongly against . 5. NATO expansion and aggressive NATO military actions, such as therecent bombing of Yugoslavia, incite and encourage antidemocratic and anti-western forces within Russia and thereby jeopardize existing arms controlarrangements. M1).However, Garthoff says "the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, without a UNmandate and with no claim of a Yugoslav threat beyond its own borders,suggest to many a more ominous pattern of hegemonic military initiative by. Senate on July 21of that year by a vote of 82 to 13. Since the United States thenpossessed a nuclear monopoly, American participation was essential to giveany Western alliance substance. Don't make NATO any bigger,retire it. The advocates of NATO expansion, suchas Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, argued that membership for theEastern European states would enhance their security and the stability oftheir fledgling democracies. .. NATO's enlargementAmerican hurdle. It coveredmany elements of the political spectrum in Western Europe and the UnitedStates. Runer (1995, 28 May) said that"if the alliance is confident of Germany's trans-formation and the lack ofa threat from Russia, perhaps the organization has reached the end of itsuseful life" (p. Will NATO be able tosurvive the war? In 1945-1946, the great American army in Europe was rapidlydemobilized. Greeceand Turkey joined NATO in 1952, West Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982. M1 and M6. The Eastern European nations have inthe past been embroiled in disputes with their neighbors. expanding NATO tothe Russian frontiers. Logically, the expansion of NATO would extend to any nationspotentially threat-ened by Russia, such as Finland and the Baltic Republicsand possibly even Ukraine. What theEastern Europeans primarily need is free access to Western Europeanmarkets, but the Western Europeans have been dragging their feet onadmitting those states to the European Union. The NATO relationship has bred a pattern of dependence. . Garthoff, R. Reckless and cruel pride atAmerica's heart of darkness. That is the one thing . NATO is obsolete. (1996, May-June). (1997, 3 June). NATO's statesmen and military planners evidently thought thatYugoslav PresidentSlobodan Milosevic would back down and accept the Rambouillet formula forethnic balance in Kosovo after a minimal show of force, as he did inBosnia. Foreign Affairs, 75, 92-1 4. (1999, 25 April). (1995,Spring). Diminution of the Soviet Threat. According to Maynes (1994, 1 Jan.), Slovakiaappears to be more concerned about an attack from Hungary than one fromRussia (p. It deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history" (p. Today the combined wealth and population of the other 18 NATO members equals or exceeds that of the United States. (1996, May-June). Slogging troops over the mountains ofAlbania and Macedonia into Kosovo against entrenched Yugoslav forces islikely to lead to a military stalemate, bring-ing back memories of Vietnamand Gallipoli in 1915-16. The 'Threat' of German Militarism. A. A shaken alliance reassessessome of its key objectives. The Soviet buildup in nuclear and conventional arms helpedWestern leaders marshal the necessary consensus, despite considerabledomestic opposition, for the placement of American long range nuclearmissiles in Great Britain and West Germany in the mid-198 s. but this has no foreign policy implications" (p. NATO Goals: Then and Now NATO's Original Raison D'Etre. is unlikely to be for long willing to go on indefinitely bearing a disproportionate share of the burden of collective security . The editors of the Los Angeles Times (NATO, 1999, 19April) pointed out, the U.S. sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Preserving the new peace:The case against NATO. After the immediate crisis subsides, itshould reduce its involvement in future Balkan conflicts and restrict itsrole in NATO to the provision of technical and logistic assistance and aminority of any forces required. In fact, the challenge has been not so much torestrain the Germans but to overcome their constitutional and otherobjections to sending forces abroad. References A diplomat at century's end. (1995, 6 February).Wall Street Journal, p. (1999, 11 April). NATO at 5 , at risk. It was in the geopolitical interests of the United States and itsWestern allies to create NATO in 1949. Because of its technological superiority in many areas, such asstrategic bombing, intelligence, and airlift capability, the United Stateshas had to provide the preponderance of the NATO military effort in theYugoslav intervention. 124). Its thesis is that the UnitedStates should: (1) avoid becoming further en-tangled in the current NATOoffensive against Yugoslavia, in particular not to become involved in aNATO ground war against Serbian forces, and help accomplish a negotiatedsettlement of that crisis; and (2) thereafter, confine its support tofuture NATO military actions which go beyond defense against attack on NATOcountries to the provision of military and technical assist-ance. Rethinking NATO's givingeveryone a seat at the table. Kamp, K., The folly of rapid NATO expansion. Marshall, T. Only Japan, which has only partiallyrearmed, is available as an American ally in the Far East. The United Statesshould use its leadership role and influence within NATO to limit tatconflict and bring it to an end as soon as possible. Mandelbaum (1995, May-June) says that "NATO is not an effectiveinstrument for promoting either free markets or democracy" (p. A con-sensus within NATOfor such a commitment mayor may not develop. The United States has world responsibilities, including theeventuality, which may be not far removed in the future, of becominginvolved in the defense of Taiwan or South Korea against a belligerentNorth Korea and/or a resurgent, modernized Chinese military determined toprevent Taiwanese independence. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.