Breaking Up NATO

The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago, but its mark on international relations is still clearly visible. An outdated relic of that tenuous time, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) no longer effectively serves its purpose of promoting peace and stability. Instead of encouraging international cooperation and peace, NATO undermines both by furthering the division of Europe into East and West. It has become an obstacle to the development of an independent and strong Europe because of its historical rivalry with Russia and its perpetuation of unnecessary U.S. involvement in Europe.

The controversy surrounding membership proposals made at the NATO summit in Bucharest earlier this month is recent evidence of the current problems. It offered “membership action plans” to Albania and Croatia but declined Ukraine and Georgia’s requests for similar plans. Many NATO member states saw the prospect of bringing these former Soviet states into the organization as dangerous because of the likelihood that their admission would anger Russia.

Instances like these illustrate the political tensions that NATO’s exclusion of Russia causes. NATO was conceived in 1949 as a bulwark against the Communist bloc, which formed the Warsaw Pact in response. Even though the Warsaw Pact dissolved 20 years ago and many of its former constituents have joined Western organizations like the European Union (EU), NATO still exists. As a Western military alliance it continues to play a significant role in European politics.

NATO’s actions in Europe over the past couple of decades have maintained the tension between Russia and NATO’s member states, despite attempts to improve relations. NATO has included Russia in some of its projects, such as the Partnership for Peace. It also claims to have “develop[ed] a genuine partnership” with Russia. Nevertheless, the relationship between NATO and Russia remains strained because of NATO’s history as an anti-Communist organization. In a recent discussion with German chancellor Angela Merkel, outgoing Russian president Vladimir Putin called NATO “an endless expansion of the military bloc under modern conditions when there is no confrontation between two hostile systems.” Putin sees NATO as a continuation of a Cold War political system that no longer has relevance, to the point that it is “harmful and counterproductive.” The antagonism between Russia and NATO also hurts countries like Ukraine and Georgia, whose attempts to reach out to the West have been largely stifled by Russia’s opposition to what it views as the eastward expansion of NATO.

NATO has made positive progress in Europe, but it can now be replaced with an organization that does not include the U.S. The EU does not have the same associations with Cold War animosity that NATO does. Although Russia disagrees with the EU on many points, it feels less threatened by the EU than it does by NATO. For example, in February, Russia opposed Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia and the replacement of U.N. and NATO forces by EU administration. When Putin explained the reasoning behind this, surprisingly he did not cite the expansion of EU influence in the Balkans, but instead accused NATO of too much ambition in trying to replace the U.N. Furthermore, Russia enjoys good relations with Germany, a major EU state. Chancellor Merkel was the first foreign head-of-state Russian President-elect Dmitry Medvedev met with after his election. Merkel and Medvedev talked about cooperation and “open doors” between the two countries. Their friendly relations suggest that a purely European organization could enjoy better relations with Russia than NATO does.

The EU is ready, or soon will be, to take over for NATO in promoting both the political and the economic welfare of Europe. Immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO’s efforts helped rebuild former Communist countries on a Western model. As part of this effort, many former Soviet states joined what would later become the EU. Economically, Europe has essentially recovered from both the Second World War and the Cold War. Today the gross domestic product of the EU is higher than that of any country, including the U.S. The EU has helped Europe progress toward economic and political unity. Although some member states are still struggling, the EU can now effectively handle European economic affairs, as its success so far proves.

The only function NATO serves that the EU cannot is the direct inclusion of the U.S. in European affairs. Although the U.S.’s interests are currently in line with Europe’s, this will not necessarily always be the case. The U.S. is a useful ally for Europe now, but its military dependence on the U.S. places it permanently under U.S. influence. If NATO is dissolved, European states will have to increase the size of their militaries, which they have the economic ability to do, in order to take over NATO’s military functions. An independent EU peacekeeping force will be better able to handle European political affairs if it does not have to turn to the U.S. for help.

NATO has made progress in European affairs, but there is no reason that the EU cannot take over. In order for Europe to move forward, both politically and economically, it needs to be free to run its own affairs without unnecessarily antagonizing Russia. It is impossible for the modern world to achieve true international peace and cooperation until it has disbanded the outdated alliances that keep the Cold War’s memory alive.



Ellen C. Bryson ‘11 lives in Straus Hall.