North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Need for Reinvention

          The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) started as a defensive organisation against the Soviet bloc. After the signing of the Treaty of Brussels and particularly when the conflict between eastern and western Europe over the German problem assumed a serious proportion, the United States endeavoured to establish a mutual military assistance organisation with the western countries. On April 4, 1949, the US, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Luxemburg, Norway, Portugal, Iceland and the Netherlands signed the North Atlantic Treaty containing 14 provisions. Greece, Turkey, West Germany and many more countries joined this organisation later.

          At the top of this organisation there are one permanent staff under a Secretary General and one permanent high level Executive Committee. This organisation mainly rests on army, navy and air forces supplied by its member states. The North Atlantic Council is the alliance's principal political body, composed of high-level delegates from each member state. NATO's military structure is split between two strategic commands: the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe located near Mons, Belgium, and the Allied Command Transformation located in Norfolk, Virginia.

          It is composed of four main commands viz the European Command, The Atlantic Ocean Command, the Channel Command and the Canada US Regional Planning Group. Although the alliance has an integrated command, most forces remain under their respective national commands until NATO-specific operations commence. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe, always a U.S. flag or general officer heads all NATO military operations.  NATO's secretary-general serves a four-year term as chief administrator and international envoy.

          The primary financial contribution made by member states is the cost of deploying their respective armed forces for NATO-led operations. (These expenses are not part of the formal NATO budget, which funds civilian and military headquarters and certain security infrastructure.) In 2014, NATO members collectively spent an estimated $850 billion on defence. The United States accounted for more than 70 percent of this, up from about half during the Cold War. There is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

          According to its terms, the signatories have expressed their full confidence in the UN Charter, have agreed to make peaceful settlement of all disputes among themselves for international peace, security and justice, have pledged to encourage economic collaboration among themselves, have agreed to resort to arms singly or jointly against foreign aggression and also have agreed to put up joint resistance to foreign aggression until the Security Council would take necessary measures against the aggressor. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, the signatory states have agreed to submit report to the Security Council in its efforts to maintain international peace and security.

          Headquartered in Brussels, the chief purposes of NATO was to strengthen the military power of the western countries under US control against the then Soviet or the Eastern European bloc and to encourage economic collaboration among the participant countries. In 2016, NATO was pursuing several missions including peacekeeping in Kosovo; counterterrorism and human-trafficking patrols in the Mediterranean; counter-piracy off the Horn of Africa; support for African Union forces in Somalia; security assistance in Afghanistan; and policing the skies over Eastern Europe apart from efforts targeted at containing a resurgent Russia.

          NATO, being a Cold War mainstay of transatlantic security, has significantly recast its role in recent years. But while the modern NATO is generally more recognized for its role beyond rather than within Europe, Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance's attention on the continent.         Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO's expansion into the former Soviet sphere. After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States favoured expanding NATO to both extend its security umbrella to the east and consolidate democratic gains in the former Soviet bloc. On the other hand, some US officials wished to move away from the Pentagon's commitments in Europe with the fading of the Soviet threat.

          European NATO members were, however, split on the issue. United Kingdom feared the organization's expansion would dilute the alliance, while France believed it would give NATO too much influence. Many in France hoped to integrate former Soviet states via European institutions. There was also concern about alienating Russia. To be better able to face the post-Cold War realities, the alliance launched the Partnership for Peace (PFP). PFP is a program designed to strengthen ties with Central and Eastern European countries, including many former Soviet republics like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.

          Many defence planners felt that a post–Cold War vision for NATO needed to look beyond collective defence and focus on confronting acute instability outside its membership. The breakup of Yugoslavia in early 1990s and the onset of bloody ethnic conflict tested the alliance on this point almost immediately. What began as a mission to impose a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina evolved into a bombing campaign on Bosnian Serb forces, NATO’s first ever combat operations in its forty-year history. The operation was important to ending the conflict in the region.

           NATO invoked its collective defence provision (Article V) for the first time following the September 11 attacks on the United States, perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. Shortly after US-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in Kabul, the UN Security Council authorized an International Security Assistance Force to support the new Afghan government. NATO officially assumed command of ISAF in 2003, marking its first operational commitment beyond Europe. It was proof the allies have adapted NATO to dramatically different tasks than what was anticipated during the Cold War.

          The new provision effectively gives the US-led coalition in Afghanistan the right to intercept and board vessels suspected of carrying arms or reinforcements for terror groups that operate in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. It serves the purpose of legitimising the NATO’s future maritime activities in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea—an ominous development against the background of the US’ standoff with Iran.

          But some critics questioned NATO's battlefield cohesion in Afghanistan. Allies agreed on the central goals of the mission—the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan—but some members restricted their forces from participating in counterinsurgency and other missions, a practice known as "national caveats." Troops from the United States, the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands saw some of the heaviest fighting and bore the largest casualties, stirring resentments among alliance states. After thirteen years of war, ISAF completed its mission in December 2014. In early 2015, NATO and more than a dozen partner countries began a non-combat support mission of about twelve thousand troops to provide training, funding, and other assistance to the Afghan government.

          NATO members have also boosted direct security collaboration with Ukraine, an alliance partner since 1994. But as a non-member, Ukraine remains outside of NATO's defence perimeter, and there are clear limits on how far it can be brought into institutional structures. The United States and the UK sent modest detachments of troops to train Ukrainian personnel in 2015, but the Obama administration has refrained from providing Kiev with lethal weapons to help counter the Russia-backed insurgency out of fear that this would escalate the conflict.           In the longer term, some defence analysts believe the alliance should consider advancing membership to Finland and Sweden, two Partnership for Peace countries with a history of avoiding military alignment. Both countries have welcomed greater military cooperation with NATO following Russia’s recent intervention in Ukraine.

          Moscow, however, has viewed NATO's post–Cold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe with great concern. As of 2016, twelve Partnership for Peace members have joined NATO. Over the years, NATO and Russia have taken significant steps toward reconciliation, particularly with their signing of the 1997 Founding Act, which established an official forum for bilateral discussions. But experts say that a persistent lack of trust has plagued relations. NATO's Bucharest summit in 2008 deepened the suspicion.

          While the alliance delayed Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia, it vowed to support the pair's full membership in the future, despite repeated warnings from Russia of political and military consequences. Russia's recent invasion of Georgia was a clear signal of Moscow's intentions to protect what it sees as its sphere of influence.      Russia's annexation of Crimea and destabilization of eastern Ukraine in 2014–2016, have soured relations with NATO for the foreseeable future.

          Another perennial point of contention has been NATO's ballistic missile defence shield, which is being deployed across Europe in several phases. The United States, which developed the technology, says the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks, particularly strikes from Iran. However, the Russia says the technology could be updated and may eventually tip the strategic balance toward the West.

          Fears of further Russian aggression have prompted alliance leaders to reassess defences on the continent, particularly in the East. NATO allies in 2015 agreed to establish command centres in six eastern periphery states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. The outposts are expected to support a new-rapid-reaction force of about five thousand troops, intended to respond to crises within days. In a major emergency, NATO military planners say that a force of about forty thousand can be marshalled. The United States is also planning to shift heavy military assets, including tanks, into some of these countries.

          Meanwhile, NATO allies, particularly the United States, Denmark, Germany, and the UK have increased air patrols over Poland and the Baltic states. In 2015, NATO jets scrambled to intercept Russian warplanes violating allied airspace more than four hundred times. In December 2015, Turkey-Russia tensions flared after a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian warplane that Ankara claimed violated its airspace and ignored repeated warnings. Russia denied the encroachment and said the incident would have “serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations.

          In recent times, NATO’s focus has been on the alliance’s switch to a global strategy, concentrating on operations outside its traditional zone of responsibility, responding to global challenges and international security and stability. The NATO mission to the Indian Ocean was undertaken hardly six months ahead of the April 2008 summit meeting of the NATO in Bucharest, Romania, where the agenda was expected to be the alliance’s further enlargement as well as strengthening its capacity and reach to undertake missions with partners around the globe.

          At the same time, the NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue (1995) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative or ICI (2004) have already brought the alliance from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf region. The NATO presence in the Persian Gulf took a solid footing when Saudi Arabia became an ICI partner. The alliance is now set to consider a formal link-up with the Gulf Cooperation Council comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.       Unlike with the NATO’s Gulf and the Middle Eastern partners, which are all authoritarian regimes, the alliance prides itself as sharing “common values” with its partners in the Asia-Pacific. Here, the NATO’s refrain is “common values and common security threats”. It is easy to see that such exclusivity is intended to keep out China.

          From Japan’s perspective, a joint security agenda with the NATO would include Asian nuclear non-proliferation (North Korea and Myanmar), prevention of a cross-strait conflict between China and Taiwan, and balancing the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in which China and Russia play a lead role. Involving the NATO in northeast Asia’s security problems and ensuring a credible deterrence against China through increased partnership with the NATO would be Japan’s optimal aim.

NATO-India Partnership

          As NATO reconfigures for the 21st century for new missions in Africa and South Asia, and as it advances across the Middle East toward the Indian Ocean looking for global partnerships, India inevitably figures high in its agenda. A NATO announcement said the deployment in the Indian Ocean aimed to demonstrate the alliance’s continuing ability to respond to emerging crisis situations on a global scale and foster close links with regional navies and other maritime organisations.

          For any security system in the Asia-Pacific (the US, Japan and Australia), India remains the prize catch. Equally, without India, the NATO’s partnerships in the Indian Ocean region would remain inherently weak. Japan has already invited India to become part of a coalition of Asian democracies. Thus, India was involved in naval exercises with the US, Japan and Australia in the Bay of Bengal. These exercises were said to be intended against sea piracy, drug trafficking and for coordinating disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. But they were largely seen as templates of a collective security system in the making, under US leadership. India has been engaged in a strategic dialogue with the US, Japan and Australia in recent years.

          Simultaneously, the US is pressing for the “inter-operability” of its armed forces with India’s. Sustained efforts in this direction by both sides are evident. In the past five years, for instance, more than half of the military exercises held by India with foreign armed forces have been with the US. Of course, “inter-operability” with the US armed forces would enable India to partake of the US’ plans for missile defence systems. The recent Logistic Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) is an exercise in this direction.

          Any pronounced gravitation toward an “Asian NATO” form of collective security will inevitably affect India’s relations with China. Therefore, India has to perform some very tightrope walking in the times ahead. The challenge for Indian diplomacy will be to convincingly interpret the implications of its “strategic partnership” with NATO members including the US. The perception is growing, and is incrementally gaining credibility, that India is aligning with a US-led security system in Asia. LEMOA only strengthens this perception.

          All said and done, even though NATO has tried to reinvent itself from being a Cold War entity directed at containing Russian influence, the situation does not seem to be much different in its post Cold War avatar as well, given the continuing one-upmanship with Russia on various accounts. NATO has gone beyond its core jurisdiction and ventured beyond in its bid to retain its supremacy in international affairs and it has all done do under US leadership.           The fact remains that while NATO’s existence has weakened the United Nations right from the beginning, it has also throughout functioned as a frontline organisation for furthering US diplomatic and strategic interests in the world. It would be more than advisable for NATO leaders to align its objectives with that of the global community to use its strength and organisation to tackle the multifarious global challenges collectively.