Expansion of NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was create on 4th April 1949 laterwards the endorse World struggle as a realization of the importance of nigh ties between United States of the States and atomic number 63 for the stability and certification of origination 1. It was a watershed number in both the US recital and in the history of twentieth century, as it marked the isolationist dodge that had characterized US foreign polity since to a greater extent than 2 centuries 2.The chemical bond was seen as a counter system to cheer Western atomic number 63an democracies against the ripening threat of communism downstairs USSR3. Later on this strategic- multitude coalescency proven an serious tool in the agitate of Cold War between regular army and USSR where it was seen as exclusively resistance for US and its ally against the elaborationist designs of communist countries spearheaded by USSR.However with the decay of USSR, unification of Germ any(prenominal) and curio of Cold War in 1989-1991, the functional public-service corporation of NATO were re-examined to decide its prox role in the hot beingness order. However, end of the Cold War did not think of end of role of NATO and curtly it witnessed the wide ethnic and religious conflicts in the Eastern atomic number 63, expoundicularly in Balkan nations 4. By 1995, NATO was required to intervene at present in many an(prenominal) an(prenominal) of these affairs as swell as looseness the role of peacekeeper in the impudently independent countries.Later on in the decade, the hold out of terrorism raised its head, and personateed supercharge challenges to roles, responsibilities and scope of NATOs in store(predicate) tense strategies 5. d whizz the entire decade of nineties NATO was shaping up its own future action course and on June 8-9, 1997, it took conclusion to expand and intromit youthful democracies of The Czech Republic, hungry(p), and Poland, all designer USS R allies, as part of NATO6. Since this decision has move much debated and heat all over its contextual application in the changed orbit order, and criticisms kick in been abundant on the merit of enlargementist scheme of NATO in the 21st century earth 7. This paper shall examine the various issues voluminous with expansion strategy on with their merits and demerits.The debate against the expansionThe decision to expand the NATO has created het up(p) debates and arguments, both in party favor and against of the decision. Many hold the opinion that an grow NATO would be beneficial for world order, global peace and security and frugal development and free trade, small-arm others view threats of greater regional focus and hegemony of certain nations if NATO continues to expand8. The magnification of NATO is largely opposed on following quartette grounds91.The expansion involves huge spending to protect the assort countries. Estimates have practice the expenditure at t o a greater extent than $125 billion annually if US goes ahead with the expansion strategy.2.Dangerously high school level of fealtys on part of US of protect the newly enrolled allied countries. Western europiuman countries themselves have demonstrated little interest in the expansion program as they consider it primarily an American objective. and then it falls back altogether on USA to shield the its allies which may be a daunting and horrific task assumption the complex geo-political relation they percentage with each other as well as USAs antecedent nemesis USSR.3. The third line of work is a modification of minute of arc problem which involves conflicting nature of relations among even new entrants in NATO. Further, some of the Central and Eastern European countries such as Hungry and Poland are embroiled centuries long feuds with their neighbors and a conflict, even though on especial(a) scale would make it required for US to assist the element bucolic, thereby widening the scope of the conflict.4. The shoemakers last concern presented relates to the possibility that expansion may forever engage NATO as a peacekeeping strength in the extreme Eastern Europe where situation among several countries, including Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Hungry, is so volatile that repeated conflicts can breach out over a number of years.The expansion and responsible factorsThe expansion of NATO came after long negotiations with former communist nations that entangled Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Soviet Union. NATO took a series of steps, such as formation of North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 and NATOs confederation for recreation (PfP) program in 1994 to develop an peaceful and peaceful environment for good interaction and cooperation for these countries10. The decision to finally include Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland came after long deliberations and amidst a growing consensus that these parturient democ racies needed to be interconnected in the western democratic manakin to help them achieve fast and lasting economic development11.Although the debate on this expansion has been widely crosswise political and strategic spectrum, it should be notable that it was not for the counterbalancely metre that NATO had expanded. Article 10 of NATOs derriere document has given it understood rights to include new members on their run across certain criteria12.As cardinal of the commutation premises of NATO is that attack on any of its member would be considered as attack against all and hence NATO would be s justified in taking military action against the aggressor, it attracted many European non members to the organization to safeguard their democratic values, freedom, heritage and civilization13. Thus NATO has undergone trine major expansions since its formation to follow up its commitment to stability and continued emergence of economy and trade in the member countries.By 1990s most of the east European nations were convinced that in joining NATO remained their only hope to protect their integrity, and ensure their survival in an ontogenesisly chaotic political order. On its part, NATO was also eager to shove these countries has it perceived that most of problems afflicting Europe were occurring in non NATO member countries and therefore by increasing the scope of alliance, NATO would contribute towards increasing the stability and security in the Eastern Europe14. Further, the new responsibilities gave NATO the much-required opportunity to present a changed face and more responsible and comprehensive attitude in the post-Cold War world affairs15.In wake of these developments, notwith rest the criticism and debates surrounding the preferably expansion strategy to include the three former communist nations, USA has confirmed its commitment to but expansion of NATO in the coming years16.European security and future expansion strategy of NATOAs the Cold War ended in 1989, it became apparent that Eastern Europe was headed for comprehensive restructuring and reformulating the strategies that were no longer applicable in the new context17. suspension system of hostilities between Western and Eastern Europe provided an unprecedented opportunity to policy makers to work towards attainment of long standing objective of European unification, in which NATO was considered as a powerful catalyst.NATO provided the full of life platform where the political, economic and military interests of both Western and Eastern Europe came together and its own regional development took priority with view to modify the economic and strategic compaction of European states18. NATO was the instrument that facilitated this ideological and strategic unification of Europe.In the view of changed political order in Europe and risks of terrorism, NATO has organize a long verge future expansion strategy that makes it absolved to every European field which se eks NATOs help in protecting its identity and culture eon making transition towards democracy19. Although the immediate and wardrobe needs of any externalize of expansion have receded, peculiarly after the successful handling of Balkan crisis by NATO and demonstration of its continued relevance as a capable peacemaker. Also, the modish enlargement, as discussed before, addressed one of the pressure level issues on NATO, to form an dynamic collaboration with former USSR supporting countries.Yet the future expansion of NATO is inevitable, as many non NATO European countries would begin to meet the conditions for approach into the shackle and may unbelief its commitment to peacekeeping if denied admittance20.Therefore considering the requirement of expansion, NATO has aforethought(ip) the procedure in clean-cut steps, with no-surprise strategy. Aspirants may request for membership dickens years before the decision making years that are puzzle as 2002, 2008-09, and 2012-14 . As strategist point out that these expansions would be limited to introduction of maximum one or two nations at a time, rather than multiple entry21. These expansions would increase the membership of NATO to 25 countries, making it one of the most organized and important military alliances in the modern times.The future expansion strategy of NATO comprises of fivesome steps1. Development of military cooperation with the newly conjugated state under Partnership for Peace (PfP) initiative2. Greater PfP coordination and cooperation to meet expectations and aspirations of new members3.Formation of rules and guidelines that assess a given plains eligibility for consideration of NATO membership4.Assessment and interrogatory of a given countrys standing in fulfilling NATOs commitment if accepted as member5.Deciding the time frame for new country to join the partnership.Conclusionelaboration of NATO has to be seen from a broader and longer perspective. NATO has become an indispensabl e tool, especially in the changing nature of terrorism that is taking global dimension. As once the free democracies of Western Europe and USA combined to cosset designs of Communism, its equally vital in the present scenario for them and the new members to form an alliance that bollockss evil purpose of global terrorism for which an armed, military equipped and strategically capable military authority is necessary.NATO, by expanding its membership, is in the process of gaining that pivotal strategic leverage, as well as create conditions in the first place that would prevent many countries to be affected by jeopardise of terrorism in the changed world strategic order.ReferenceAlexander Moens, Lenard J.Cohen, Allen G.Sens .NATO and European Security Alliance Politics from the End of the Cold War to the Age of Terrorism. Praeger. Westport, CT. 2003Barany, Z. The Future of NATO Expansion Four Case Studies. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. 2003carpenter T.G and Barba ra C. NATO ebullition Illusions and Reality. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. 2001Gardener, H.. NATO for a New Century Atlanticism and European Security. Editor Carl C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT 2002.Kaplna, L.S. The Long Entanglement NATOs First Fifty Years. Praeger. Westport, CT. 1999Lepgold, J. NATOs Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem, transnational Security, 231 (Summer 1998) 78106Millar A and Plesch D.T. Pushing the Envelope Too Far? Technologys Impact on NATO Expansion. Journal of world(prenominal) Affairs. Volume 51. Issue 2. 1998. Page Number 641.Seidelmann, R. NATO for a New Century Atlanticism and European Security. Editor Carl C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT 2002.Simon, J. Central European Civil-Military Relations and NATO Expansion Washington, D.C. case defense force University, McNair Paper 39, 1995Solomons, G.B. The NATO overstatement Debate, 1990-1997 The Blessings of Liberty. Praeger. Westport, CT. 1998.Szayna, T.S. NATO Enlargement, 2000-2015 Determinan ts and Implications for defense reaction Planning and Shaping. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001.1 A. Millar and D.T Plesch. Pushing the technology too far? Journal of International Affairs. 2 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Praeger, 1999. p. 1 3 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Praeger, 1999. p. 2 4 A. Moens, L. J.Cohen, A. G.Sens. NATO and European security. Praeger. 2003. 5 A. Moens, L. J.Cohen, A. G.Sens. NATO and European security. Praeger. 2003. 6 G.B. Solomons. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-1997. Praeger. P 1. 7 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003. 8 H. Gardner. NATO for a New Century Editor. C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT. 2002. P 23. 9 T.G. work and A.B. Conry. NATO Enlargement Illusions and Reality. Cato Institute. Washington DC. 2001. 10 Jeffrey Simon, Central European Civil-Military Relations and NATO Expansion (Washington, D.C. guinea pig Defense University, McNair Paper 39, 1995) 11 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Prae ger, 1999. p. 8 12 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 13 G.B. Solomons. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-1997. Praeger. P 2. 14 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 15 Joseph Lepgold, NATOs Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem, International Security, 231 (Summer 1998) 78106 16 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 17 R. Seidelmann, NATO for a New Century. Edit. Carl C. Hodge 2002. p- 47 18 R. Seidelmann, NATO for a New Century. Edit. Carl C. Hodge 2002. p- 48 19 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001. p-41. 20 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001. p-42. 21 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001. p-42Expansion of NATOIntroductionNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed on 4th April 1949 after the Second World War as a realization of the importance of close ties between Un ited States of America and Europe for the stability and security of world 1. It was a watershed event in both the US history and in the history of 20th century, as it marked the isolationist strategy that had characterized US foreign policy since more than 2 centuries 2. The alliance was seen as a counter strategy to protect Western European democracies against the growing threat of communism under USSR3. Later on this strategic-military alliance proved an important tool in the wake of Cold War between USA and USSR where it was seen as only safeguard for US and its allies against the expansionist designs of communist countries spearheaded by USSR.However with the disintegration of USSR, unification of Germany and end of Cold War in 1989-1991, the functional utility of NATO were re-examined to decide its future role in the new world order. However, end of the Cold War did not signify end of role of NATO and soon it witnessed the wide ethnic and religious conflicts in the Eastern Euro pe, especially in Balkan nations 4. By 1995, NATO was required to intervene directly in many of these affairs as well as play the role of peacekeeper in the newly independent countries.Later on in the decade, the issue of terrorism raised its head, and presented further challenges to roles, responsibilities and scope of NATOs future strategies 5. Through the entire decade of 1990s NATO was shaping up its own future action course and on June 8-9, 1997, it took decision to expand and include new democracies of The Czech Republic, Hungry, and Poland, all former USSR allies, as part of NATO6. Since this decision has risen much debated and heat over its contextual application in the changed world order, and criticisms have been abundant on the merit of expansionist strategy of NATO in the 21st century world 7. This paper shall examine the various issues involved with expansion strategy along with their merits and demerits.The debate against the expansionThe decision to expand the NATO ha s created heated debates and arguments, both in favor and against of the decision. Many hold the opinion that an expanded NATO would be beneficial for world order, global peace and security and economic development and free trade, while others view threats of greater regional tension and hegemony of certain nations if NATO continues to expand8. The Expansion of NATO is generally opposed on following four grounds91. The expansion involves huge expenditure to protect the allied countries. Estimates have put the expenditure at more than $125 billion annually if US goes ahead with the expansion strategy.2. Dangerously high level of commitments on part of US of protecting the newly enrolled allied countries. Western European countries themselves have demonstrated little interest in the expansion program as they consider it primarily an American objective. Thus it falls back entirely on USA to shield the its allies which may be a daunting and horrific task given the complex geo-political relation they share with each other as well as USAs former nemesis USSR.3. The third problem is a modification of second problem which involves conflicting nature of relations among even new entrants in NATO. Further, some of the Central and Eastern European countries such as Hungry and Poland are embroiled centuries long feuds with their neighbors and a conflict, even though on limited scale would make it mandatory for US to assist the member country, thereby widening the scope of the conflict.4. The last concern presented relates to the possibility that expansion may forever engage NATO as a peacekeeping authority in the extreme Eastern Europe where situation among several countries, including Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Hungry, is so volatile that repeated conflicts can break out over a number of years.The expansion and responsible factorsThe expansion of NATO came after long negotiations with former communist nations that included Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulg aria, and the Soviet Union. NATO took a series of steps, such as formation of North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 and NATOs Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994 to develop an amicable and peaceful environment for effective interaction and cooperation for these countries10. The decision to finally include Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland came after long deliberations and amidst a growing consensus that these nascent democracies needed to be integrated in the western democratic framework to help them achieve rapid and lasting economic development11.Although the debate on this expansion has been widely across political and strategic spectrum, it should be noted that it was not for the first time that NATO had expanded. Article 10 of NATOs foundation document has given it implicit rights to include new members on their meeting certain criteria12.As one of the central premises of NATO is that attack on any of its member would be considered as attack against all and hence N ATO would be s justified in taking military action against the aggressor, it attracted many European non members to the organization to safeguard their democratic values, freedom, heritage and civilization13. Thus NATO has undergone three major expansions since its formation to fulfill its commitment to stability and continued growth of economy and trade in the member countries.By 1990s most of the eastern European nations were convinced that in joining NATO remained their only hope to protect their integrity, and ensure their survival in an increasingly chaotic political order. On its part, NATO was also eager to embrace these countries has it perceived that most of problems afflicting Europe were occurring in non NATO member countries and therefore by increasing the scope of alliance, NATO would contribute towards increasing the stability and security in the Eastern Europe14. Further, the new responsibilities gave NATO the much-required opportunity to present a changed face and mo re responsible and comprehensive attitude in the post-Cold War world affairs15.In wake of these developments, notwithstanding the criticism and debates surrounding the earlier expansion strategy to include the three former communist nations, USA has confirmed its commitment to further expansion of NATO in the coming years16.European security and future expansion strategy of NATOAs the Cold War ended in 1989, it became apparent that Eastern Europe was headed for comprehensive restructuring and reformulating the strategies that were no longer applicable in the new context17. Abatement of hostilities between Western and Eastern Europe provided an unprecedented opportunity to policy makers to work towards attainment of long standing objective of European unification, in which NATO was considered as a powerful catalyst.NATO provided the vital platform where the political, economic and military interests of both Western and Eastern Europe came together and its own regional development too k priority with view to strengthen the economic and strategic coalition of European states18. NATO was the instrument that facilitated this ideological and strategic unification of Europe.In the view of changed political order in Europe and risks of terrorism, NATO has formed a long term future expansion strategy that makes it open to every European country which seeks NATOs help in protecting its identity and culture while making transition towards democracy19. Although the immediate and pressing needs of any plan of expansion have receded, especially after the successful handling of Balkan crisis by NATO and demonstration of its continued relevance as a capable peacemaker. Also, the latest enlargement, as discussed before, addressed one of the pressing issues on NATO, to form an active collaboration with former USSR supporting countries.Yet the future expansion of NATO is inevitable, as many non NATO European countries would begin to meet the conditions for entry into the Alliance and may question its commitment to peacekeeping if denied admittance20.Therefore considering the requirement of expansion, NATO has planned the procedure in distinct steps, with no-surprise strategy. Aspirants may request for membership two years before the decision making years that are set as 2002, 2008-09, and 2012-14. As strategist point out that these expansions would be limited to introduction of maximum one or two nations at a time, rather than multiple entry21. These expansions would increase the membership of NATO to 25 countries, making it one of the most organized and important military alliances in the modern times.The future expansion strategy of NATO comprises of five steps1. Development of military cooperation with the newly joined state under Partnership for Peace (PfP) initiative2. Greater PfP coordination and cooperation to meet expectations and aspirations of new members3. Formation of rules and guidelines that assess a given countrys eligibility for consideratio n of NATO membership4. Assessment and scrutiny of a given countrys standing in fulfilling NATOs commitment if accepted as member5. Deciding the time frame for new country to join the Alliance.ConclusionExpansion of NATO has to be seen from a broader and longer perspective. NATO has become an indispensable tool, especially in the changing nature of terrorism that is taking global dimension. As once the free democracies of Western Europe and USA combined to thwart designs of Communism, its equally vital in the present scenario for them and the new members to form an alliance that thwarts evil purpose of global terrorism for which an armed, military equipped and strategically capable military authority is necessary. NATO, by expanding its membership, is in the process of gaining that significant strategic leverage, as well as create conditions in the first place that would prevent many countries to be affected by venture of terrorism in the changed world strategic order.ReferenceAlex ander Moens, Lenard J.Cohen, Allen G.Sens .NATO and European Security Alliance Politics from the End of the Cold War to the Age of Terrorism. Praeger. Westport, CT. 2003Barany, Z. The Future of NATO Expansion Four Case Studies. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England. 2003Carpenter T.G and Barbara C. NATO Enlargement Illusions and Reality. Cato Institute. Washington, DC. 2001Gardener, H.. NATO for a New Century Atlanticism and European Security. Editor Carl C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT 2002.Kaplna, L.S. The Long Entanglement NATOs First Fifty Years. Praeger. Westport, CT. 1999Lepgold, J. NATOs Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem, International Security, 231 (Summer 1998) 78106Millar A and Plesch D.T. Pushing the Envelope Too Far? Technologys Impact on NATO Expansion. Journal of International Affairs. Volume 51. Issue 2. 1998. Page Number 641.Seidelmann, R. NATO for a New Century Atlanticism and European Security. Editor Carl C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT 2002.Simon, J. Central European Civil-Military Relations and NATO Expansion Washington, D.C. National Defense University, McNair Paper 39, 1995Solomons, G.B. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-1997 The Blessings of Liberty. Praeger. Westport, CT. 1998.Szayna, T.S. NATO Enlargement, 2000-2015 Determinants and Implications for Defense Planning and Shaping. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001.1 A. Millar and D.T Plesch. Pushing the technology too far? Journal of International Affairs.2 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Praeger, 1999. p. 1 3 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Praeger, 1999. p. 2 4 A. Moens, L. J.Cohen, A. G.Sens. NATO and European security. Praeger. 2003. 5 A. Moens, L. J.Cohen, A. G.Sens. NATO and European security. Praeger. 2003. 6 G.B. Solomons. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-1997. Praeger. P 1. 7 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003. 8 H. Gardner. NATO for a New Century Editor. C. Hodge. Praeger. Westport, CT. 2002. P 23. 9 T.G. Carpenter and A .B. Conry. NATO Enlargement Illusions and Reality. Cato Institute. Washington DC. 2001. 10 Jeffrey Simon, Central European Civil-Military Relations and NATO Expansion (Washington, D.C. National Defense University, McNair Paper 39, 1995) 11 L.S. Kaplan. The Long Entanglement, Praeger, 1999. p. 8 12 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 13 G.B. Solomons. The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990-1997. Praeger. P 2. 14 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 15 Joseph Lepgold, NATOs Post-Cold War Collective Action Problem, International Security, 231 (Summer 1998) 78106 16 Z.Barany. The Future of NATO Expansion. Cambridge University Press. 2003 17 R. Seidelmann, NATO for a New Century. Edit. Carl C. Hodge 2002. p- 47 18 R. Seidelmann, NATO for a New Century. Edit. Carl C. Hodge 2002. p- 48 19 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001. p-41. 20 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica , CA. 2001. p-42.21 T.S. Szayna. NATO Expansion 2000-2015. Rand. Santa Monica, CA. 2001. p-42