Future Of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
AUTHOR Cmdr. Jose H. Elkfury, Brazil
CSC 1991
SUBJECT AREA - National Security
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: FUTURE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Introduction: The world starting a new era with the end of the so
called Cold War and the revolutions in Europe. It seems that the
instrument created to counter the communist expansionism in Europe -
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - and its strategies are no
longer necessary, and that the strong European Community is ready to
excuse the protection of the United States.
Part one: The origin of the East-West confrontation and the role of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The importance of the United
States in the Alliance.
Part two: The strategies employed by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization to counter the Soviet Union expansionism in Europe. The
problems of the flexible response strategy.
Part three: The end of the Cold War does not mean the end of the
East-West confrontation.
Part four: The North Atlantic Treaty Organizations role in a new
Europe and the role the United States.
Conclusion: Despite the announced end of the Cold War, NATO must
continue to exist, the United States must remain in NATO, and
flexible response is still a good strategy.
FUTURE OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
By CF(FN) Jose H. S. Elkfury
In 1983, on March 23rd, when President Ronald Reagan
announced a comprehensive research program to eliminate the threat of
Soviet Union strategic nuclear weapons - the Strategic Defense
Initiative - the world was starting a new age. The Soviet Union
understood that it could no longer compete with the United States in
the armsrace. To continue competing with the United States, more and
more resources would go to the defense budget, but the Soviet Union
people were tired. They wanted cars instead of tanks, shoes instead
of boots, clothes instead of uniforms. The people in Eastern Europe
were unhappy as well. They wanted the freedom to decide their own
destiny. There was no way out for the Soviet Union. The only to
prevent defeat in the Cold War was finish the war. Glasnost and
perestroika were the solution.
Outside of the Soviet Union, glasnost and perestroika
are represented by the unification of Germany, and the collapse of
the Warsaw Pact. The threat to the North Atlantic Treaty no longer
exists. So, why not promote the dissolution of the Treaty?
As the communist world changes, a process of
integration was developed in Europe. The European Community is a new
political, economic and military power. So, does Europe still need
United States protection? Furthermore, is flexible response a viable
strategy? Despite the announced end of the Cold War, NATO must
continue to exist, the United States must remain in NATO and
flexible response is still a good strategy.
To understand such statements, it is necessary to
understand why the North Atlantic Treaty was created, the role of the
United States, and the strategies that have been adopted to combat
communist expansionism. After that, one more question must be
answered to understand my statement - is the communist threat
actually disappearing?
The Cold War has been seen as the last and decisive
chapter of the most important fight of this century - the East-West
confrontation. Bipolarity is being replaced by multipolarity. The two
superpowers are no longer the uncontested leaders of the world's two
blocs - the East and the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
has had an important role in this confrontation. To understand its
role, one must understand how the confrontation started, what were
its roots, and who started it.
Historians would find the reasons for the confrontation
on the ancient Russian expansionism, started as early as the time of
aristocratic czars like Peter the Great, and continued with the new
Marxist czars like Lenin and Stalin. Geopoliticians would say that
Russians first, and Soviets later, have always tried to secure warm
water ports. Economic reasons can also be found. But, the main reason
for the Soviet expansionism is the export the communist revolution.
The Marxist ideas, according to the communists, are the solution for
workers all around the world, so such ideas should be brought to
workers of other countries.
Non-communist countries could not agree with such
ideas. They supported the counterrevolutionary White Army during the
Russian civil war. The war ended with a communist victory, and the
Soviet leaders would not forget non-communist support for the White
Russians. So, a series of actions and reactions started between
communist and nor communist countries. Economic embargoes and the
COMINTERN are some examples, but the best opportunity to expand the
communist border took place during the Second World War, employing a
powerful instrument - the Red army.
At the end of the Second World War, while moving
towards Berlin, the Soviet army occupied the Eastern European
countries. In those countries, the communists conducted three-phased
operations to take control of the local government. The United
States, reacting against those operations, employed the Truman
Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, in 1947. The communist reaction was
the establishment of COMINFORM, an organization for ideological unity
of the Soviet bloc. In 1948, two new communist actions - a coup
d'Etat in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin blockade. These two actions
were major and called for an suitable reaction. On April 4th 1949,
the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington by representatives
from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United
States.
Those actions and reactions at the end of Second World
War were the beginning of the Cold War period of the East-West
confrontation. Such a confrontation did not take place only in
Europe. The Soviet Union conducted actions to expand communism all
over the world. The communists succeeded in others continents. China,
Vietnam and other smaller countries in Asia, Cuba in Latin America,
and some African countries are some examples. But in Europe, since
the birth of the North Atlantic Treaty until today, the communists
failed to export their revolution. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, under the umbrella of the United States, was effective
in countering the Red Army and, after 1955, the Warsaw Pact forces.
So, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born within the
context of the East-West confrontation. It is an instrument that the
non-communist bloc adopted to counter the communist advance in
Europe.
Created within the framework of the United Nation
Charter, the Treaty consist of a Preamble and 14 articles. Article 5
is the core of the Treaty. According to this Article, member
countries agree to treat an armed attack on any one member as an
attack against all of them. The Treaty does not specify the enemy nor
its duration. Article 6 specifies the area in which the Treaty can be
employed. However, it does not imply that events occurring out the
area cannot be subject of consultation within the Alliance, because
events elsewhere in the world can affect the security in the North
Atlantic area. Furthermore, the Treaty can be amended to include any
area of interest. Although each member country has the same status in
terms of rights and obligations, it is obvious that the Unites States
has a major role in the alliance.
The United States role was a consequence of the
Marshall Plan and the fact that the United States was the only member
country with nuclear capabilities. Because of its economic help to
build up Europe in the post war period, and his ability to establish
a nuclear umbrella over Europe, to protect Western European countries
against the communist threat, it is easy to understand its position
as a leader among the member countries. Europe had fear of Soviet
aggression and was sure that it did not have the capability to deter
an attack. Furthermore, for the United States, a free Europe was a
vital interest. Therefore, the North Atlantic Treaty matched United
States and European security interests.
As a consequence of being the natural leader of the non
communist bloc, the United States determined the strategy to deny the
communist bloc expansionism. The relative importance of the national
elements of power -- diplomatic, politic, economic and military - have
changed according to changing threats, but the military component has
not changed. It has always been prepared for immediate employment.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has followed the United States
strategy. The military strategy has changed from 1949, because the
changes in the nuclear capabilities of the two blocs and because the
changes in the concept of employment of this capabilities. As the
strategy changes, different words have been used - containment,
massive retaliation, deterrence, flexible response. Although, in my
opinion, only two concepts characterize those strategies: massive
retaliation and flexible response.
The first strategy, massive retaliation, meant the
massive employment of nuclear weapons against any aggression. Such
strategy was effective in Europe, but it did not succeed in other
continents. The force to be employed was so terrific that it did not
have credibility. The aggression would have to be major to justify
the employment of nuclear weapons. Only a threat to national survival
would justify a nuclear response. An attack against Europe maybe
would justify such reaction, but the Soviet Union never tried.
Instead, the communist bloc attacked out of Europe, where they were
sure that the nuclear retaliation would not be employed. Korea is an
example.
Massive retaliation succeeded in Europe only as a
defensive strategy. The United States failed to liberate some
European countries from the communist oppression. Workers and
students of Poland and East Germany received incentive to conduct
liberation movements, but, at the decisive moment, the support
collapsed. There was no way to support these countries against the
Soviet Union tanks other than employing nuclear weapons, but the
threat was not dangerous enough to justify nuclear strikes.
When the Soviet Union also got the capability to
project nuclear power, a new chapter of the East-West confrontation
started. Both bloc could employ massive retaliation, but for both
blocs such strategy was still so terrific that did not have
credibility. During this period of the confrontation, each bloc tried
to achieve a better weapon to be in advantage against the other. It
was the nuclear race. Both sides had a huge capability, however both
sides knew that a nuclear engagement could produce no winners. On
"the day after", only losers would survive. Two important lessons
were learned from the Cuba crisis of 1962. The Soviet Union felt the
cost of not having an oceanic navy. The United States felt they
should have another way to solve crisis, because the threat of
massive retaliation was not effective. They should have a more
flexible strategy. A strategy with different levels of answer to
different levels of threat.
The flexible response strategy was the solution. Once
again the North Atlantic Treaty Organization adopted a United States
strategy. Instead of the threat of massive nuclear retaliation, there
were several options: direct defense, threat of escalation and threat
of retaliation. Such strategy allowed NATO to react according to the
level of aggression. Any invasion of Europe would be answered by the
commitment of conventional forces and, if necessary, the threat and
possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. The employment of tactical
nuclear weapons by Soviet Union would be answered with the same kind
of weapons plus nuclear attack against specific strategic targets.
So, the massive retaliation would be only the last step, the last
option of the whole spectrum of reactions.
Is the flexible response an effective solution? Yes, it
has been, because it has accomplished its purpose - to deny the
Soviet Union expansion in Europe. But, this is not a complete answer.
It should be said that the Western strategy as a whole - diplomatic,
political, economic and military.- has succeeded, not only the
military strategy. The flexible response is better than the massive
retaliation strategy, but still has some problems. There are two main
problems, one within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and one
external.
The first problem is the divergence between the United
States and the European countries about how to employ the flexible
response strategy. According to the United States, the answer to a
Soviet Union attack against Western Europe should be a phased
campaign. The United States conception is to delay the enemy with
forward deployed forces thereby giving the alliance enough time to
introduce the rapid deployment forces and heavy forces to conduct a
conventional counter offensive. If such reaction does not stop the
Soviets, the next step would be to employ tactical nuclear weapons.
The European countries, mainly Germany, do not agree with that
campaign because the first two phases - delay and conventional
counter offensive - would take place on their territory, in large
urban and industrial areas. Until a favorable decision can be
achieved, European countries will devastate their territory. So, they
prefer an earlier nuclear answer against a communist attack. In such
case, the response would not be too flexible.
The external problem is the Soviet Union military
doctrine. According to their way of war, quick and massive actions
are essential to a decisive victory. To try to deny a Soviet Union
offensive, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces should also
act decisively. But the Western bloc does not have enough
conventional forces. So, the Soviet Union probably will not give the
West any chance to employ tactical nuclear weapons. The communist
forces will target those weapons and/or will employ tactical - or
maybe strategic - nuclear weapons first. In such a scenario, the West
would have to employ strategic weapons earlier than planned. Once
again, the response would not be too much flexible.
A post cold war strategy was presented in the so called
"London Declaration". It is oriented to crisis management, with small
military forces, working for stabilization. The strategy would try to
reestablish peace, but if war came, a capable force that can fight
three-dimensional and high technology battle will be employed. It is
the same flexible response strategy with a new name, and the same two
problems cited before are present.
When trying to solve those problems, mainly the first,
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries will have, in
the next years, a different relationship than that of the first forty
years of the alliance. There is no longer one powerful country
protecting the other member countries and determining what to do and
how to do it. Now there is the European Community, a powerful
organization that includes a unified Germany. The European Community
has enough power to ask for more participation in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization decisions about military strategy. There is a
growing chorus among European countries calling for a strictly
European security counterpart to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. Such European organization would deal with situations
considered critical to European security interests but over which the
United States - and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - would
not be willing to support military intervention.
Even with other organizations being created to manage
specific European security interests, the North Atlantic Organization
Treaty will still be necessary. There are two main reasons for this.
First, can we be sure about the end of the East-West confrontation?
Second, with the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would
not Europe revert to the pre First World War conditions with instable
alliances spreading all around?
We can not be sure about the end of the East-West
confrontation because glasnost and perestroika may be only new words
for an old kind of solution employed by Russians and Soviets to solve
their problems. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Lenin
approached the West to obtain technologic advancement and economic
help. All Western help used to strengthen their military capability.
Is Mikhail Gorbachev doing the same thing now? Mikhail Gorbachev is
also providing a non democratic government with semblance of
democracy, improving the Soviet Union image in the West, building
domestic opinion to his own advantage. So, is the Soviet Union
changing her historical behavior now?
The other reason to not be sure about the end of the
confrontation is Gorbachev's capability to conduct his country to a
democratic kind of life if such democracy will lead to dissolution of
the Soviet Union. Will the hard line Soviet communists see the end of
the Soviet empire and do nothing? Will the people be patient and
quiet while facing difficult problems such as unemployment,
recession, high cost of basic products?
The Soviet Union can not attack the West today. Her
economy, today, is not strong enough to support a high level of
welfare for the people and, at the same time, support a high
intensity war. Her internal politic situation is not stable. However,
her diplomacy is still working, and working very well. So, as in the
l92Os, would not Mikhail Gorbachev be employing the principle of one
step back for two steps ahead? Does the end of communism mean the end
of the Soviet Union - or the Russian - expansionism? Military studies
teaches that we have to plan according to the enemy's capability and
not according to his intention.
Europe without the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
is Europe without the United States decisively involved in European
affairs. Despite the integration process being developed, there are
some European affairs that can unbalance the European Community. The
most important is the unified, powerful Germany being again a great
power, with a prominent role in the European Community and creating
insecurities in its neighbors. Germany in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization is a transparent Germany, but if the alliance is
dissolved or if Germany gets out of the alliance, she will not be
transparent anymore. So, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is
the way to maintain the balance of power in Europe, with the United
States a unified Germany.
After the European revolutions in the 1980s, mainly the
Warsaw Pact collapse and the integration process of the European
Community, the fear of aggression by Soviet Union has been greatly
abated, and the incapacity to Europe face an aggression has been
almost annulled. Therefore, despite the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization being barely needed to achieve her central purpose -
keeping the Soviet Union away - she is still necessary as an
important instrument to maintain the balance of power in Europe. If
the role of the United States in the alliance is no longer to protect
Europe, it is to deny a European powerful state - as Germany - to
create unbalance of power on the continent.
Explaining the second reason to not dissolve the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, also explains why the United States can
not end its involvement in Europe and its presence in the alliance.
Of course, the relationship of the United States and the other member
countries will be different. The predominant role of the United
States in the decision making process will be replaced by a new
situation - the United States and the European Community as equal
partners. About the strategy to be employed, there is no doubt that
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be able to react against
any threat, responding with the necessary force according to the
level of the threat - a flexible response strategy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calvocoressi, Peter. "World Power 1920-1990." International Affairs,
October 1990, 667-674.
National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington D.C.:
The White House, March 1990.
NATO Handbook, Brussels, 1989.
Nuechterlein, Donald E. American Overcommitted. Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 1985.
Rivermam, Robert H. "The Challenges of Glasnost for Western
Intelligence." Parameters, XX (No 4, December 1990), 85-94.
Roos, John G. "Nato Shifts Toward Crisis Management; Europeans
Consider Regional Alliance." Armed Forces Journal, April 1991,
34-35.
Stoessinger, John G. The Might of Nations. 8th ed. New York: Random
House 1986.
CONCEPT OF COMMAND
By CF(FN) J. H S. Elkfury
During the time I have been in the Brazilian Marine
Corps, I have had the opportunity to learn about leadership by
either attending classes -or working in different of jobs - special
operation platoon, infantry and tank company, battallon staff and
Antarctic stations. I am still learning, because leadership is a
subject related to human behavior and, therefore, it is subject to
changes. In this paper, I will address what I learned about
leadership.
I see three different ideas related to concept of
command - the concept of leadership, the techniques of leadership,
and the leader. Leadership is the art of conducting a group to
achieve an objective. It can be our family, a group of school kids,
a youth gang or a Marine platoon.
There are three main ways to conduct a group, also
called techniques of leadership: autocratic, democratic and liberal.
It is evident that in very few situations will only one of these
techniques be employed. It is more common for all three techniques
be employed at once; however, one of them will be dominant.
When employing the autocratic technique, the group has
no chance to determine its objective or its strategy to achieve the-
objectives. The group chief or the higher level of authority makes
the decisions. The democratic technique is characterized by group
participation in the decision process to establish the objectives
and determine the strategy. When employing a liberal leadership,
each member decides about his own strategy and his objectives while
performing the group activity. Of course, each member's objectives
and strategy can not contradict the general purpose of the group.
An example of a liberal procedure can be the physical
training of the Command and Staff College students. Everybody knows
the fitness levels that are expected of a Marine, the time available
to practice and the techniques to improve his or her fitness.
However, everyone can decide for themselves what level he or she
wants to achieve and how conduct the individual practices.
A platoon leader planning a sports day for his platoon
will probably talk to everybody, to be sure that all the platoon
will enjoy the sport day. Each platoon member will have the chance
to participate in the decision process about the platoon activities
In this case, the platoon leader uses a democratic leadership
technique
However, sometimes the platoon leader will employ an
autocratic technique. During a combat situation, for example. When
attacked by a an enemy ambush, the platoon leader will dictate
orders. No one will have a chance to participate in the decision
process. There is not be enough time. Furthermore, nobody will have
the choice to do what he wants, because doing it can be dangerous
for him and/or for the platoon.
So, the platoon leader has opportunity to employ the
three leadership techniques. The activity itself will determine
which one has to be employed or has to be preponderant. Special
groups can also be an important factor when deciding what technique
to employ. In prison, for example, autocratic: leadership is the most
effective technique to use against dangerous convicts.
A leader has to prevent excessive use of each
technique. An excessively autocratic leadership, for example, will
probably became an authoritarian one. A leader that calls for group
participation too often, for any kind of subject, can lose the
confidence of his group. An excessively liberal leader will surely
lose control over his group, resulting in anarchy. Deciding about
which technique to employ is a very important choice for a
successful leader. The capability to decide the correct technique to
use is an important characteristic of a good leader. But it is not
the only one.
Beyond good character, good moral , honesty and other
virtues, there are some behaviors, attitudes and postures that a
good leader has to have. It can be a long list, but I see four
prominent things example, professionalism, loyalty and moral
courage.
The leader-must be a model for his group. When
performing any activity, he must be first. He must do the worst job.
He must be the first to wake up and the last to sleep. The actual
leader must say "follow me" instead of "go" when tasking his group.
Professlonalism is linked to the idea of leading by example because
it is difficult to be a good example without knowing how to perform
the tasks. It is almost impossible to be an effective platoon leader
without knowing how to employ the platoon. The same thing can be
said of a brigade commander or of a fire team leader. Professional
knowledge is critical to making good decisions.
The leader must be loyal to his group and to his
superiors. By speaking the truth, leaders gain confidence and become
loyal. To defend the group interests despite any adversity is
loyality to the group. Convincing the group to carry out an unpopular
order of a superior commander is difficult. By showing the reasons
to carry out the order instead of criticizing the superior, a leader
shows his loyality to the superior commander. In both cases, the
leader must have moral courage. He also has moral courage when he
assumes the responsibility for mistakes done by the group rather
than charging a group member.
Therefore, to conduct a group to achieve and objective,
and effective leader must know very well his profession to be a model
to his group, he must have courage to say "no" when necessary, he
must have loyalty both to his group and to his higher echelon, and
must have the sensibility to chose the best leadership technique
according the situation.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
