NATO is the foundation of the UK, UN, EU, TPP Legislation, a agenda if you wish to understand
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of transatlantic security during the Cold War, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to maritime security in the Mediterranean. But 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.
Demetri Kantarelis firstname.lastname@example.org, an Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Global Studies at Assumption College, completed the research for this paper during the 1997-98 academic year while the author was visiting the Department of Future Conflict Studies at the Air War College/Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.
There was a great deal of debate on whether or not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should continue existing after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union and the earlier dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. From 1991 to 1995, the NATO Alliance was perceived by some as missionless and less able to influence events as it became leaner and weaker.
After 1991 the immediate NATO responses to the changed circumstances it faced were: (1) a reduction in the number of commands from three to two, (2) the replacement of large standing forces by multinational rapid reaction forces, and (3) a reduction in the headquarters staff by more than one third, resulting in a staff composition with greater European presence and less U.S. personnel than before. But NATO’s destiny was to be rewritten. By itself alone, the Bosnia crisis proved wrong those who declared the Alliance missionless. The Dayton Accords and NATO’s effective involvement in the Bosnia conflict helped remind us of the true mission of the Alliance, a mission that was there all along. As the 1997 NDU/INSS Strategic Assessment states:
“The 1949 Washington Treaty establishing NATO signifies common principles of democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. Neither the ideological threat of communism nor the Soviet Union are mentioned. The concept of Europe is not defined in the Treaty as West or East. NATO’s success during its first forty years should be judged as much on what it helped create – a prosperous West Europe, whole and free – as what it stopped: an expansionist and hostile ideology. Whatever steps NATO now takes throughout the rest of Europe to promote wider peace and security are in consonance with the original Treaty.” 
Although the above quotation reminds us what NATO’s real mission is, the end of the cold war brought with it many new and more difficult challenges. These challenges are potentially less lethal, but are still very dangerous and extremely complex. Logically, the Alliance has to adapt and evolve and, as it does so, remain focused on its mission. We have to keep studying its dynamic threat environments and how we can best prepare to deal with them.
Discussed in the remainder of this paper are NATO’s mission (Section II); threats to it (Section III); some principles of alliance theory that may be useful in guiding NATO in its new path of dynamic evolution (Section IV); and a conclusion (Section V).
II. NATO’s Mission
NATO’s mission, as one may redefine it today, is to protect the interdependent economies of West/Central Europe and North America from internal, peripheral, and external peace-disturbing crises. Undoubtedly, this is a mission in consonance with the original 1948 treaty.
It is not difficult to see the similarities between “1949” and “1998”. Just askyourself: what were and still are NATO’s enemies then and now? Here is Lord Ismay’s 1948 quip that may be helpful: “… keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in…”. At that time keeping the “Germans down” meant keeping “fascism down”; “Russians out” meant “communism out”; and “Americans in” meant “freedom, democracy, prosperity, and stability in”.
As the leader of the West, during this century the U.S. successfully fought wars against fascism and communism, proving that such anachronistic systems cannot sustain themselves and that they are not conducive to peace and prosperity. It was indeed a defining and fruitful victory, a victory that has been welcomed by Germans, Japanese, Central Europeans, Asians and many more. For more than fifty years now, ex-Axis countries have been demonstrating that they understand the values of peace, democracy, stability, and prosperity. Similarly, since 1991, “majority” Russia appears determined to try the best approach, the approach based on the rules of democracy and free markets.
But there is also “minority” Russia which asks: “Why NATO? Why NATO enlargement? What for?” Unfortunately, some Russians claim that the West has difficulty learning from recent history, and as a result history will repeat itself. NATO’s existence and, even more gravely, NATO’s enlargement, they say, is evidence that the West is preparing another invasion against mother Russia, exactly as the West did in recent past under German or French alliances. Needless to say, those few Russians ought not be afraid. They, like the rest of the world today, should see instability, extreme nationalism, and the potential resurgence of anachronistic systems as the enemy common to all, and, given recent history, especially to Europeans and Russians. An evolving NATO should not be feared by Russia or any other country. It and they face the same threats.
Flow Chart 1 (above) points out that the evolution paths of NATO, Russia, Central, and East Europe meet today in the area of a common mission. Undoubtedly, as NATO has been demonstrating for fifty years, its intention is to serve as a preventive medicine against potential instability which is undesired, not only by member states, but also by peripheral as well as external neighbors.
NATO serves as a quasi-public good for its members and as a pure public good for its non-members. It is non-exclusive in the protection it provides regardless of how much each member contributes. Simultaneously, it enables its peripheral and external neighbors (e.g. Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and even France) to free ride under its protective umbrella. With such protection, extremists or anachronisms in either member or non-member nations have less potential support for a rise to power. The obvious example is the non-member nations of Bosnia and its immediate land neighbors in conjunction with recent/current events there: NATO’s successful intervention not only restored order in the area, but it also prevented the outbreak of potential instability to its members, Russia’s “near abroad,” and possibly the entire world. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the evolving NATO should not be feared by Russia or any other nation. Instead, it should be embraced, welcomed and, if possible, assisted in the pursuit of its mission.
Naturally, one may ask: why should NATO be maintained and assisted as it pursues its new mission? The answer is easy: because it serves as a creator and protector of prosperity. It has done so during its first fifty years — just compare West Europe’s prosperity and security levels from 1945 to 1998 to those previously achieved — and it will be necessary in order to continue doing so in the future.
The necessity of the continuation of its new mission depends on two factors: (1) high economic interdependence between Europe (European Union – EU) and North America (North America Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA), and (2) globalization of economic activity. EU and NAFTA get richer not only from their economic interaction, but also from their interaction with the rest of the world. Thus, both factors contribute to EU’s and NAFTA’s increasing wealth levels and ever rising share of the global economic pie. Undeniably, it is not only a prosperity path that Europe and North America desire to continue following, but a path that they would like to share, under win/win conditions, with the rest of the world, especially Russia.
According to a UN report , out of the top 100 transnational corporations ranked by foreign assets in 1995, 78 originated from the EU/NAFTA regions, with the U.S. leading the per-country tally (30) followed by the U.K. (11), France (11) and Germany (9).