Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

Mara Marco Kaunas 10/28/2010 Contemporary International Crisis

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

Index
Index .............................................................................................................................................. 2 The beginning of NATO ................................................................................................................. 3 The end of the Cold War and the Yugoslav War ........................................................................... 5 Kosovo and their consequences.................................................................................................... 6 The NATO-Russia Council .............................................................................................................. 7 The new NATO Strategic Concept ................................................................................................. 8 The Georgias Conflict ................................................................................................................... 9 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 10

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

The beginning of NATO

Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949 The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty. In this way starts the North Atlantic Treaty, which in 1949 was signed by the founders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, United States, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Netherland, Portugal and United Kingdom. The NATO was born at the end of the II World War, in a post-war situation, because of the Occident worry about the expansionist policy of the Soviet Union, the threats to the sovereignty in Norway, Greece, Turkey, and Czechoslovakia, and the Berlins block. The main goal of the United States in that moment, was achieve an agreement with the Occidental European countries, to guarantee their economic and politics interests in the world; and of course, to restrict the Soviet Union movements. Like Lord Ismay, Chief of Staff to Winston Churchill and the first General Secretary of the NATO, said, the creation of the Alliance tried to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. After their foundation, more countries joined to the NATO, Greece and Turkey in the first expansion, the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955 and Spain in the 1982. More recently were the incorporations of Chez Republic, Poland and Hungary in 1999. In 2004 joined Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, and in 2009, Croatia and Albany. In addition to the preamble of the Treaty, where, we can read the necessity of take care of the freedom, principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, as well of the preservation of peace and security, the article number 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, give a perfect explanation of their purposes: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that [] each of them [] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith [] such actions as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Article 5 is at the basis of a fundamental principle that of collective defense. A collective defense ready to face the common enemy: Russia.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

As is easy to imagine, Russia didnt stay peacefully, in 1954 presents a proposal to join to NATO, but it was rejected. As a result, Russia and the Eastern Europe Communism countries, signed in 1955, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, commonly known as the Warsaw Pact. In the same terms as the NATO, the Warsaw Pact was made to cooperate on the maintaining of the peace and the collective defense if any country was attacked. In this way, in 1955, we found an absolutely bipolarized world, organized around the two super powers. But they had ones back covered if the Cold War suddenly turned into a directly confrontation. In this begins of the NATOs activity, we can talk about different phases. The first, until the end of the Koreas war, in 1953, based in the massive retaliation military policy of the United States with the possibility of using atomic weapons. The second, between 1953 and 1960, with the signed of Warsaw Pact, the Suez crisis, and the first proposal to not nuclearization by the Poland government. The third stage, 1960-1972, with a change in the strategy, after the Cuban Missiles Crisis, from which will be established, the balance of terror, because it would be a sure mutual destruction in case if war. After 1972, the United States and the URSS tried to reach an agreement, which could finish some tension focus. But it was impossible like the Iran, Angola, Nicaragua and Vietnam confrontations showed. During the 80s the arms race developed in a worried levels. But in the 1989, the Soviet Union broke down, and changed everything.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

The end of the Cold War and the Yugoslav War

The NATO was built, as we already have said, to face up to the USSR. If the Communist Block had disappeared, Russia could understand two possible developments of the NATO. One was the inevitable disappearance of the alliance, because it had lost its raison dtre. And the other can be a complete organization restructuration, transforming the Alliance into the core of a European security system including Russia. It`s important to stress, that in 1991, the NATO remake their strategic concept. They deleted the concepts of enemy and threat, and changed it by more vague concepts, like challenges, risks, that can be understand like a step forward to achieve an opening dialogue and a cooperative attitude with the ex Soviet Block. But at the same time, the negative to accept the new Russia to the OTAN, and the non dissolution of the North Atlantic Alliance, became the NATO into the only one structure who takes care of the all north hemisphere security. In this time, looking for a new goal that could explain the continuity of the organization when the main enemy had been disappeared; in 1994 the OTAN make two important decisions. First, NATO invited all European countries to take part of the named Partnership for the Peace, a pragmatic and flexible instrument for cooperation between NATO and its partner countries. And second, they present the idea of create an Combined Join Task Force, CJTK, a multinational and multi-service task force, organized and formed for the full range of the Alliances military missions, and it may include elements from non-NATO Troop Contributing Nations. In this situation, started the Yugoslav conflict, which will be the first attack mission in NATOs history. Since the crisis starts, Russia supported the preservation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia integrity, and the end of the conflict in a pacific way, with the United Nations background. In 1995, the mission of the United Nations, leadership by France and United Kingdom, on the Balkans, was failing. The European got the United States support, only after had accepted that the NATO carried out an air expedition to finish the war. Russia didnt support this military actions, but they didnt have a really possibilities to influence, because the decision was just made, and they just rejected the movements and actions of the European countries.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

Kosovo and their consequences

In 1997, the OTAN and Russia signed the Mutual Relation, Cooperation and Security Agreement, with the purpose to achieve and work on the principles of peace, democracy and cooperative security. The oldest enemies, was determinate to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. This agreement was the consequence of the development of the NATO into a new organization and the transformation that the new Russian Federation was going on, to become in a kind of democratic country. The agreement, explain the Russia new attitude in this way: Russia is continuing the building of a democratic society and the realization of its political and economic transformation. It is developing the concept of its national security and revising its military doctrine to ensure that they are fully consistent with new security realities. As it was said, since 1991, the Alliance revised its strategic doctrine, reduced their conventional and nuclear forces, expanded its political functions, and taken on new missions of peacekeeping and crisis management, although they didnt always have the United Nations support, as in Kosovo. The NATO decision to attack and to bomb Kosovo, has been the subject of a lots of discussions. In first place, the NATO didnt have the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and they had the opposition of permanent members, like Russia. Although of that, NATO carried out their mission, and they justified it explaining that in Kosovo was an international humanitarian emergency. The other explanation that was given, said that in Europe was taking place an ethnic cleansing that couldnt be permitted. Russia didnt support the OTANs decision, and they have a clear opposite position to the United States; but in any case, the Russian diplomacy didnt want to take risks, they tried to influence in the decisions but didnt block it. Russias economy was really weak after the Soviet Union break down, so they couldnt risk their new international contacts. After the Kosovo attack, in 1999, the strategic concept was again remade. With this new doctrine, that of course didnt change the Washington treaty, the NATO justified the Kosovo attack. The NATO developed in a planetary military organization, with the capacity of work on the fringes of the International Right. The 1999 reformulation includes in the 29 article the following description: Military capabilities effective under the full range of foreseeable circumstances are also the basis of the Alliance's ability to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management through non-Article 5 crisis response operations. It means that NATO can go beyond
6

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

the legitimate right of defense, which presupposes a prior armed attack and they recognize the possibility of military intervention without prior Security Council authorization of UN.

The NATO-Russia Council

In 2002, and with the 1997 Mutual Relation, Cooperation and Security Agreement between Russia and NATO as precedent, was created the NATO-Russia Council. A new forum with the main goal to develop a politic dialogue into security issues between this two powers. These include terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation, arms control and confidence-building measures, theatre missile defense, search and rescue at sea, civil emergencies and new threats and challenges. Since then, constructive political consultations have been held on issues, such as the situation in Afghanistan, Balkans, Darfur, Iraq or the broader Middle East region. In 2004 December, the NATO-Russia Council, signed the NATO-Russia Action Plan on Terrorism. This action plan has a global character and includes specific initiatives designated to prevent, combat and deal with the consequences of terrorist acts. Russia became into the first non-NATO member contributing to a collective defense operation based on the Article 5 when in 2006 her navy troops joined the NATO naval patrols in the Mediterranean Sea. Another key in the partnership against terrorism within the NRC is the cooperation in the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan, an issue of great importance because often the drug money used to finance terrorist groups.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

The new NATO Strategic Concept

All the events that had happened since the start of the XXI century make necessary a new reformulation of the NATO Strategic Concept. The attack to the Twin Towers in 2001, the Iraq war, and the new understanding of Europe, are the cause that at the ends of this 2010, because the NATO will present their new Strategic Concept. President Barack Obama said in April 2009, They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America. These reveal that the relation inside the NATO, is still unequal. The United States need partners, including Europe, but Europe needs to the United States. It means, that the new Obamas government are sure that the relations and the conditions have changed definitely since the NATOs creation So, if the NATO or the European Union cannot respond to the United States prospects they will try to found other ways, even the bilateral relations with European countries to achieve their goals. Its necessary to remark the lack of interest of the United States by the European security. It doesnt worry anymore, because the post-soviet situation has been disappeared, and the political interests of Bush have been finished. The core of the world is moving since the North Atlantic to the Asia and the Pacific. There was a very important point that can be the key in the next year relations between the NATO and Russia. It was the worry about the Arctic Ocean. With the climate change, the Arctic Ocean could be in a few years a new navigation route, and their energetic resources could be accessible. The Russians interest in the High North its easy to understand, the Russia`s border runs nearly half the Arctic Circle. If the coast could be navigable all the year the military and security consequences are clears. So Russia, didnt want to come back to a block background, having discussions about this with the NATO, and supports the bilateral negotiation.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

The Georgias Conflict

In the summer of 2008, started the Russia attack against Georgia, creating the most serious crisis between Occidental countries and Russia since the end of the Cold War. The Georgias government, attack the pro independence regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the goal of reestablished the constitutional order, after the militias, with Russian`s weapons, violent movements. Russia, immediately supported the separatist, give the Russian nationality to the Ossetias citizens and send troops and weapon to the conflict zone, ignoring the NATO and all the international institutions advices. The internal division in the NATO was also in this issue. With countries such as France and Germany believed that isolating Russia was not a solution, and the strong and unequivocal position from the United States that considered the Russian position as an inconceivable behavior. Finally the relationships that had cost so much time building ends breaking. The meetings between NATO and Russia were canceled. After more than a year, the relations between then returned this year, and in a new meeting established for the 20th of November, the NATO leaders, hopes to return into the good relations with Russia.

Russias participation in international crisis challenge to NATO coherence

Bibliography
The North Atlantic Treaty, 1949. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm Organizacin del Tratado del Atlntico Norte, definition by Jaime Pastor. Teacher of the Spanish National Distance Learning University.

http://www.ucm.es/info/eurotheo/diccionario/A/otan.pdf Del tratado de Washington a la Guerra de Kosovo, Dalague, Fernando.

http://revistas.ucm.es/ghi/0214400x/articulos/CHCO9999110341A.PDF The Combined Join Task Force concept

http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb1204.htm Rusia en los Balcanes; Kurjak, Jelica

http://www.istor.cide.edu/archivos/num_6/dossier2.pdf Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security Between NATO and Russian Federation

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_25468.htm OTAN strategic concept 1999

http://www.fasoc.cl/files/articulo/ART41125e22e7d1b.pdf The Atlantic Strategic Concept 1999

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm

NATO-Russia Action Plan on Terrorism

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b041209a-e.htm

10