FREE ESSAY ON US FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS NATO

US FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS NATO

United States Policy Towards NATO
In this paper I will first explain the history of NATO and the United States policy
towards
it. I will then give three reasonable policy recommendations for the United States
towards
NATO. This is important because NATO is an organization with a very brief history but it
has
molded Europe and other countries and has made a safe-haven from war for the past five
decades.
NATO was spawn out of the Western countries of Europe fearing the expansion of the 
greedy, hungry Stalin of the Soviet Union which would directly lead to the expansion of 
communist governments. Also, "in 1949 most of the states of Europe were still enfeebled
by 
wartime devastation, striving for economic recovery, attempting to reestablish shattered
political 
institutions, resettle refugees and recover from the second major upheaval in 30 years."1
After 
the second world war Stalin, of the Soviet Union, started to spread his communist
government to 
many Eastern European countries fast. Just a couple years before all of this an alliance
was made 
between many nations called The United Nations. This is where the base idea of NATO came
out 
of. There is a particular article in the United Nation's charter, article 51, which paved
the way. 
Article 51 read: Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or 
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations,
until the 
security council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. 
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be
immediately 
reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of 
the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it
deems 
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.2 So, armed
with this
article, ten European countries turned to the United States and Canada to draft a pledge
of mutual 
security and on April 4, 1949, they all met in Washington to sign the North Atlantic
Treaty. The 
fear that created this alliance could not better be seen than in Winston Churchill's,
prime minister 
of Great Britain, telegram to President Truman saying: "An iron curtain is being drawn
down 
upon their(Soviet Union) front. We do not know what is going on behind. . ."3 With this
quote 
from the British Prime Minister we could see that the biggest fear was the fear itself of
not 
knowing what was going on in the Soviet Union.
The North Atlantic Treaty consisted of 14 articles in which I will now briefly explain
to
help you understand what this treaty entailed. First off, the whole purpose of this
treaty was to
"prevent aggression or to repel it, should it occur."4 It provided for the continuous
cooperation
and consultation in political, economic and military fields and had an indefinite
duration. Every
member who was a part of this treaty signed to express their desire to live in peace with
all
peoples and all governments. All of this was just reaffirming their faith in the
principles of the
United Nations. The first article defines the basic principles that member countries
should follow
to keep the peace and world security. The second article was an inspiration from the
first article of
the United Nations Charter. This article defines the aims for the member nations to
pursue and the
obligations they have. The third article is a statement that the signatories will do all
they can to
resist attack. The fourth article calls for consultation from all members if one of the
members
feels that they are threatened. The fifth article is the core of the treaty and states
that if one of the
member countries is attacked all other members will see it as an attack on each and all
of them. 
The sixth article defines the area that the provisions in article five apply. Article
seven and eight
the member nations stipulate that none of their other international commitments conflict
with the
North Atlantic treaty and that any commitments they make in the future won't conflict
with the
treaty as well. Under article nine a council is created in which each member is
represented. 
Article ten provides for any other European country to join the alliance if they will
uphold the
principles outlined in the treaty. Article eleven describes the process in which
ratification are to
occur and how the treaty is to enter into force. Articles twelve and thirteen deals with
the
possibility of revision of the treaty after ten years and that any member can leave after
twenty
years. The treaty has never been revised and France is the only country to leave the
alliance. 
Lastly, article fourteen gives equal authority to both the English and French versions or
texts of
the treaty and states that they are to be safely deposited in Washington DC.
Now the creation of this alliance was not all perfect as one would think. There was a
lot
of debate about this alliance in Congress. Most of the negative response was directly
related to
the fact that for most of our history, the United States had what people call an
"isolationist"
foreign policy. This means that the United States had gotten so used to just letting
foreign
countries deal with their own problems and we had enough of our own so most leaders of
this
country thought we should just deal with our own problems. Even George Washington, in
his
farewell speech, thought that America needed to deal with its own problems and only its
own
problems. So you can see that the United Nations charter and the North Atlantic Treaty
were a
new from of foreign policy for the United States. The United States was to embark on a
new way
to look at foreign policy and it would be a change that would last. Now the ratification
passed by
a majority but the minority who voted against it wetre prominent men who spoke out
veraciously
against the treaty. Regardless of this opposition the United States needed a way to try
to curtail
the expansion of communism in Eastern Europe. This way to curtail communism and secure
free
governments was NATO. The United States and the other free countries couldn't do anything
in
the UN because of the constant stalemate by the Soviet Union. Still, some didn't think
that this
was any of the United States' business. "To Americans the Treaty was presented less as
an
alliance than as a cultural and economic association, fulfilling all requirements of the
United
Nations."5 This explains the reason why some were quick to look down upon NATO. People
saw it as another UN and that would just be a waste of United States time and money. For
those,
in the beginning, who were for the Treaty it was easy to justify why. "They(State Dept.)
were to
deter aggression by facing a potential aggressor with a firm US commitment to Western
Europe,
which - had it existed in 1917 or 1939 - might have prevented two world wars."6 These
were the
words that made those who were for the Treaty so confident and so hopeful that this
Treaty
would be passed. Some of those against the Treaty were such prominent persons as Senator
Robert A. Taft and Henry A. Wallace. Taft was quoted as making such comments as, "Let us
begin to make our own foreign policy, instead of letting Moscow make it for us."7 and "it
is with
great regret that I have come to my conclusion, but I have come to it because I think the
pact
carries with it an obligation to assist in arming, at our expense, the nations of Western
Europe,
because with that obligation I believe it will promote war in the world rather than
peace, and
because I think that with the arms plan it is wholly contrary to the spirit of the
obligations we
assumed in the United Nations Charter."8 From the statement of the Honorable Mr. Taft we
see
that he was a die-hard isolationist fan as were many of those opposed to the Treaty. Mr.
Wallace
offers us another view of the opposition. Mr. Wallace is quoted as saying, "It(NATO)
demands
spending by Americans without limit in dollars or time. It will create an intolerable
burden on our
own people, exacting lower living standards and the loss of fundamental freedoms."9 In
reading
that statement you can imagine what it did to the public after hearing it. So you can see
that the
opposition to the Treaty was backed by distinguished men with very powerful words. In the
end,
though, the Treaty was approved by the Senate by a vote of 82 to 13. Thus, America
finally
could start looking for a good way to use this new alliance. 
Now in order for one to understand the policies the United States had with NATO it is
essential for one to know that for the first twenty years of NATO the United States had
four main
types of foreign policy ideas with respect to NATO. The first main type of policy
attitude the
United States had was called Accommodation which occurred from 1944 to 1950. This meant
that the congressmen didn't think the United States should be so far into Europe's
business as it
was preparing to be. The congressmen during this era thought that we should be fine
because we
just won a war and thought we were losing our fight for peace. President Truman worked
through this problem by using joint participation by the President and member of
congress. 
"Truman overcame congressional resistance to such an active American role abroad only by
working closely with members of Congress and convincing them, and the American people, of
the
grave political instability that most European states faced from their economic situation
and from
the growing threat of Soviet communism."10 After swaying the support of Congress Truman
was
able to do such tremendous things as; participate in the UN, the International Monetary
Fund, the
national security act of 1947 became law, and support of Greece and Turkey was approved.

"Joint legislative-executive action supported a strong American global role, culminating
in the
Senate approval of NATO and the permanent stationing of American troops in Europe--an
unprecedented American military commitment in a time of peace."11 You will see that in
this
period America has a more or less "feel it out" policy towards NATO and that can be
expected
being that this was the first ever alliance the US had ever taken part in. The first big
event in this
period was that the actual signing of all twelve participating countries took place here
in the
United States. All twelve countries came to Washington, DC to sign the official North
Atlantic
Treaty. After this the first ever NATO meeting was also held in Washington on September
17,
1949. The next thing that happened in respect to America's relationship or policy with
NATO
was that on January 27, 1950 President Truman approved a plan that would give those in
the
NATO area $900,000,000 for military aid funds. After that was the creation of an
integrated
European force under centralized command, adequate to deter any aggression and to help
ensure
the defense of Western Europe. This military structure was organized and the council
asked
President Truman to ". . make available General Dwight D. Eisenhower to serve as Supreme
Allied Commander for Europe."12 This meant that in Americas first ever alliance with
European
countries it was chosen right away to lead it's military. Most have said that the reason
for this
was because we had all the power of the military, namely, nuclear weapons. With this new
addition NATO was ready to go, or so it thought it was, with an American general leading
the
way. So you can see that the United States was pretty much all for NATO and doing
whatever
they could to better its situation from the very beginning . The proof is in the fact
that they even
put one of their own generals out there to lead the military division of NATO. Also, in
this
period, NATO created what was called council deputies and the American Ambassador
deputy,
Charles M. Spofford, was elected to be the permanent chairman to the council deputies.
All of
this occurred despite the lengthy and heated debate in Congress over whether we should
even
enter into this alliance. From this, one can deduce that those in America who were all
for an open
door policy with NATO really were all for it.
The second major foreign policy attitude of American was called Antagonism. 
Antagonism lasted from 1951 until 1955. This was a period of bipartisan foreign policy.
The
republicans and democrats really fought it out in this era. The Democratic party, during
this time,
filled the air with accusations of Republicans committing treason and helping out the
communist
party. "Congressman Robert Rich of Pennsylvania charged that Secretary of State Dean
Acheson
was on Joseph Stalin's payroll."13 So you can see that during this time period there was
much
turmoil between the parties and nothing much could get done in reference to NATO. The
height
of this period was the debate over the Bricker amendment, which was an amendment to the
constitution in which Congress would gain the responsibility and authority to approve
all
international agreements that failed to pass by one vote. Had this amendment passed the
United
States might have dropped out of NATO shortly afterwards. When this amendment failed
this
period ended. This is the period when we really see America have an contributory policy
towards
NATO. Anything NATO needed that we could give it, we gave it. We first see our famous
General Eisenhower in mid 1950 agree to cooperate in working out the problems of NATO's
military problems. Next, the US sign a pact with New Zealand and Australia due to our
policy
towards NATO. Then, on January 30, 1952, we have another American military leader
appointed
as a military leader for NATO. Admiral Lynde D. McCormick became the first Supreme
Allied
Commander Atlantic. This is the second time we see America contributing one of its'
military
leaders to the NATO military. We then see an American policy of expansion for NATO when
it
helps vote to accede Greece and Turkey. Next the US supports one of the NATO military
commands by stationing the Headquarters for the Allied Command Atlantic in Norfolk,
Virginia. 
To close this period out we see General Eisenhower elected to be President and by this
occurrence we can almost be assured, as we will, that US interests will lie heavily on
NATO
because of the fact that Eisenhower served as a military leader for one of NATO's
military
commands. Not only did General Eisenhower serve as a leader but he was the first leader
of a
NATO military command.
The next and third foreign policy attitude was called the Congressional Acquiescence
period and lasted from 1955 to 1965. In this period you see the two parties put their
differences
aside and together they supported the president in foreign policy. There was only one
thorn in the
side of making foreign policy and that was McCarthy. McCarthy spent everyday accusing
Acheson and Truman of treason and allowing communist infiltration into America. Not a
day
went by without McCarthy asking for the resignation of Acheson and the impeachment of
Truman. Amidst all of this chaos we see America go full fledged to support NATO more than
it
has ever. We also see that because of the United States' role in NATO it joins in many
more
treaties, pacts, and alliances than it has ever before. To start things out President
Eisenhower
claims publicly that he will keep troops in Europe for as long as they are needed there.
Then we
see more of an expansion policy when, again, America helps vote to accede Germany. On
August
2, 1952 we see the Canadian and US NATO air defense integrate and station headquarters
in
Colorado Springs, Colorado. Next, the US takes a bold step with the UK in publicly
claiming or
proposing the interdependence of all countries in the free world which was a direct
challenge to
the USSR. More contributory policy then occurs when President Kennedy gives some of his
strategic nuclear forces to NATO. Next, as a show of our military muscle, the US
performs
operation "Big Lift" which was an operation in which 14,500 troops were flown to Germany
to
shoe the NATO member nations that we were willing, ready and able to get troops to Europe
for
defense in emergency situations. So, as I said before, in this period it seems as if the
US wants to
show off or just make sure that the other NATO member nations know that we are 100% on
board with them and that our policy towards NATO was one of contribution by all means. 
the fourth and final of the main policy periods early on lasted from 1965 to 1969 and
was
called the period of ambiguity. This was a period in which Congressmen were a bit uneasy
about
a warlike foreign policy. Once again, though, through all of this turmoil Congress still
supported
the President. This period was classified by its' name because "More and more members of
Congress felt that they should be consulted by the President on crucial questions of war
and
peace."14 In this period you see the United States' policy towards NATO taking a back
seat to
the Policy towards the Vietnam war. In this time of limited policy towards NATO you see
America meeting with the rest of the NATO member nations to discuss the creation of a
nuclear
planning group which was created and had there first meeting in Washington, DC The only
other
event was the twentieth anniversary of NATO celebration in 1969 in Washington, DC
For the remaining thirty years from 1969 to 1999 you see America's policy towards
NATO being consistent with the policy of the past. The main policy was contribution with
no real
big seminal events occurring because the crumbling of the USSR was occurring. You still
see an
expansionist policy as well as more countries are acceded to NATO. So to sum it all up
for the
last thirty years America's policy towards NATO has been one of contribution, expansion,
and
military aid. There have been a few recent events which have occurred with respect to the
United
States policy towards NATO. We can see that very recently the United States has kept
pretty
much the same attitude of foreign policy towards NATO that is has ad consistently in the
past. 
First we see that the US has supported NATO militarily with its involvement in the war
in
Kosovo. We can also see that the US has kept the policy of slow enlargement by the
recent
addition of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to NATO. So from this evidence in
the
recent events that the US has, still, kept a policy of slow enlargement and military aid
towards
NATO.
Now that we have the history of US policy towards NATO out of the way I will give you
three policy recommendations I believe are what America should aim for and after I list
those
three and why I will give you the one I think is most feasible and justify why I think
that should be
the way to go. The three policy recommendations that I have come up with are; the status
quo,
that is to say slow enlargement and much military aid, rapid enlargement with a
conversion of
NATO into a more economic alliance now that the Cold War is over, and then maybe the US
should consider trying to make NATO an alliance of just the super powers and these
superpowers
should try to prevent outbreaks of war and play international policemen.
The first recommendation that I suggest is stay with the status quo. We see that the US
has kept a fairly constant policy towards NATO and that policy has been military aid and
slow
enlargement. One of the biggest advocates for this policy is the President, Mr. Clinton
himself,
believes that the US should fight for the slow enlargement of NATO to build a new entity
that
might promote world peace. There is also the old saying that if something isn't broke,
then don't
try to fix it. A lot of people have this view on the way the US should look at NATO, it
is in our
nature if you think about it. We have always tried to leave things alone and not try to
tinker with
them so as to keep it going in the same direction. On the surface, an idea like this
seems genuine
and true. One must look, though, at the eventual causes of enlargement. You might say,
for
example, that if we try to enlarge NATO what will it become? This idea goes all the way
back to
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These three great thinkers all agreed that the more in a
community,
entity for our understanding, the less power it has and the more chaos it will create. If
so many
countries become members of NATO it will be pretty hard to agree on anything. You would
also
have a divided gap. Most of the time you would see the big members want one thing and
the
smaller member nations want another thing. Also, one must look at the past to learn how
this
idea probably wouldn't work. After World War II France and the US joined a pact called
the
Kellogg-Brand Pact of 1928. This was a pact meant to outlaw war by making it illegal.
This pact
was joined by a numerous amount of other countries and turned into a big joke. There was
no
way to see that this pact would ever be carried out. How can one honestly say that if
they join an
alliance there will never be a war. If NATO keeps its original mission and enlargement
occurs on
a very large scale, like most want it to, it to will turn into one big joke.
The next recommendations I have is one that I'm sure would cause much debate all over
the world but it is a possibility. If NATO were to keep the mission it originally started
out with
why not only let Big powerful countries join to make sure that war is prevented as much
as
possible. A lot of times the only thing that letting smaller countries into the alliance
will do is
slow the process and sometimes cause the objective to go off course. If you think about
it, the
superpowers of the world are the ones that rule this world. If there could be an alliance
of just the
superpowers they could act as a supercop for the world in which the other nations would
follow
and let lead. In this super policing force every member could contribute the same large
amount so
that there would be no fighting over who should get to rule and make decisions and there
would
be no fighting about who should contribute what because they would all contribute the
same. 
Even now, you can see that most of what NATO does is in the interests of the member
nations
who contribute the most. The only way possible for NATO to continue with the original
mission
plan it had would be to cut back on its membership.
The last policy I recommend is the one I think we should follow. I think that the US
should try to enlarge NATO as much as possible but change the mission to economic
stability. 
With economic stability there would be very few reasons for war. If everybody came
together
and put together an economic aid type program the only direction this world would go is
up. I'm
sure some can only imagine what a stable world economy would do for everyone involved.
By
creating this, the US would gain many allies. What better way to promote peace but to
offer an
economic council to help third world countries and all of the eastern European states,
especially,
to recover from the communist struggle that they just recently got out of. The whole
reason
NATO was created and the US joined it was to promote peace by preventing war and by
shifting
its mission to this I think that this can be achieved in a different kind of way. If this
doesn't occur
the US is in danger of losing a great alliance because NATO would be at risk to just
disintegrate
because it can't adjust to the fact that the Cold War is over and they don't know what to
do now. 
Why don't we help make something that was just created for a specific idea and turn NATO
into
a truly peaceful alliance. This is, sadly, one of the only hopes to keep a dream of world
peace
alive. 
As you can see I just gave you a brief history of NATO and the United States policy
towards it for the last half of the century. I also gave three policy recommendations and
told you
which one I would like to see implemented for the better of the US and the world. This
has been
a long journey and it is far from over but hopefully we can all look to another way to
promote a
peaceful world. I hope the information I gave here has been interesting and something you
might
look at differently now.
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NATO Information Service. 1989. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Facts and
Figures. Brussels: NATO
Kaplan, Lawrence S, ed. 1968. NATO And The Policy Of Containment. Boston: 
Raytheon Education Company.
Richard D. Lawrence, and Jeffrey Record, eds. 1974. U.S. Force Structure in
NATO. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution.
Faringdon, Hugh. 1989. Strategic Geography: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the
Superpowers. London and New York: Routledge.
Knorr, Klaus. 1959. NATO And American Security. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
NATO Information Service. 1983. NATO Handbook. Brussels: NATO
Coffey, Joseph I. 1997. The Future Role Of NATO. New York: Foreign Policy
Association.
NATO Information Service. 1984. NATO And The Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons.
Brussels: NATO
Bolles, Blair, and Francis O. Wilcox. 
Bagby, Wesley M. 1999. America's International Relations Since World War I. New
York: Oxford University Press 
Rosati, Jerel A. 1999. The Politics Of United States Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers