NATO decision-making and re-discovering the North Atlantic Treaty
ESLaPorte
Treaty"
by ESLaPorte
Sun, Aug 03 2003
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
The Alliance is - as some of us hope for - pondering a different
decision-making process that is more realistic and able to meet the fluid,
changing threats to our collective Atlantic Alliance. This self examination
of the decision-making process should have occurred at least a few years ago
at the Washington Summit. It should have been considered at the Prague
Summit. The "deadlock" in the "Turkey defense crisis" back in February
should have taught the Alliance that the consensus habit is out dated for
the new, fluid threats. The notion of the "right of veto" of a member in the
North Atlantic Council should have been challenged (as it is now) as a
historical fallacy and a false practice that is inconsistent with the North
Atlantic Treaty. The problem is that we in the Atlantic Community and NATO
citizens in Allied countries need to get NATO totally out of the Cold War
and rediscover the true Atlantic Alliance and the true, quiescent purposes
of the North Atlantic Treaty.
First - and importantly, there is no right to a veto in NATO, in its North
Atlantic Council. This notion is utterly false and flies in the face of one
on the major reasons why the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO were created in
the first place. One of the major reasons why the leaders of the North
Atlantic democracies walked away from the UN Security Council back in
1947-49 was due to the absolute veto in the UN Security Council and its
abuse by the Soviets. The leaders of the North Atlantic democracies then
formed their own security and political pact, the North Atlantic pact. The
absolute veto was not to be a part of this North Atlantic pact and it is
historical fallacy to suggest that there should be a veto in NATO.
Second, just where the Alliance picked up the notion that decision-making
must be by consensus is rather unclear, as of now, to this Author. This
Author has engaged in some research into the notion of the consensus habit
of the Alliance. Tracing exactly where the Alliance picked up the notion of
decisions by consensus will have to be greatly researched. It appears as if
the "habit of consensus" grew out of the need for unity in the face of the
threat from the Soviet Union. This "need for unity" was demonstrated on
April 4th 1949. The Atlantic world had to show this unity as a form of
spiritual warfare against Soviet communist aggression.
As the Alliance expands to 26 members, it will need not only a more
realistic decision-making process, but will need to become more of a
political alliance and less of a military alliance. The NATO Alliance
already performs political functions in its requirements NATO aspirants in
the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and regular membership. And many of
these requirements for NATO membership involve non-military reforms, such as
free elections and human rights. The idea of the Alliance taking on a more
political function as it continues to function in a military-security
capacity will be required. What will also be required is another shift in
the Cold War worldview of NATO as the "military only" alliance defined
exclusively in terms of "arms, armies, troops, ships and American bases in
Europe."
So then, we of the Atlantic Alliance must now revisit the quiescent, second
purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty. That is, the political and cultural
advancement of Atlantic democracy and principals. We must understand that
the new threats are from the fluid al-Qaeda, not the static Warsaw Pact.
This means that we must have some unity, but not the stifling and paralyzing
habit of consensus. Included in this we must drop the historically false
notion and incorrect rule that a single country has a veto in the Alliance's
North Atlantic Council. NO veto in NATO exists and NO NATO member has a veto
in the Council!
We must place our Atlantic Alliance above the wishes of just one
memberstate's interests. We must rediscover the meaning of the Article Four,
the consultation article. The true Atlantic Alliance is something that Tony
Blair understands and this brave British leader had expressed this in his
address to the US Congress a couple of weeks ago. We must, on both sides of
the Atlantic, rediscover the true meanings and purposes of North Atlantic
Treaty. A large part of accomplishing this task is realizing that the Cold
War is over and that NATO needs to be brought out of the Cold War too.
See also:
"Origins of Atlanticism: The Atlantic Idea and its Implications for
Russia-NATO Relations"
by Tiziana Stella. http://www.pronato.com/Russia.NATO/stella1.htm
"The UN Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty"
by Erin S. LaPorte. http://www.pronato.com/NATreaty/un.and.nato.htm
"NOT JUST MILITARY! The other purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty"
by Erin S. LaPorte http://www.pronato.com/NATreaty/article2(1).htm
"The Atlantic Community and the North Atlantic Treaty"
by Erin S. LaPorte http://www.pronato.com/NATreaty/atl.comm(1).htm
Sascha Hauke
> "NATO decision-making, the new threats, and rediscovering the North Atlantic
> Treaty"
> by ESLaPorte
> Sun, Aug 03 2003
> http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
>
> The Alliance is - as some of us hope for - pondering a different
> decision-making process that is more realistic and able to meet the fluid,
> changing threats to our collective Atlantic Alliance. This self examination
> of the decision-making process should have occurred at least a few years ago
> at the Washington Summit. It should have been considered at the Prague
> Summit. The "deadlock" in the "Turkey defense crisis" back in February
> should have taught the Alliance that the consensus habit is out dated for
> the new, fluid threats. The notion of the "right of veto" of a member in the
> North Atlantic Council should have been challenged (as it is now) as a
> historical fallacy and a false practice that is inconsistent with the North
> Atlantic Treaty. The problem is that we in the Atlantic Community and NATO
> citizens in Allied countries need to get NATO totally out of the Cold War
> and rediscover the true Atlantic Alliance and the true, quiescent purposes
> of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The decision making process within NATO works just fine. The decisions
reached by the North Atlantic Council represent the collective will of
NATO's member states, decision are NOT reached by vote, but by mutual
agreement, therefore there was no "deadlock", and there also has been no
"Turkey defense crisis". For one thing, Turkey is the most prominent and
potent military force in the region, far superior to Iraqi forces, in
fact already engaged in northern Iraq prior to US intervention, but not
with Iraqi forces but with Kurdish rebels. In any case, the situation
was most precarious, as an opening of a second US front in northern
Iraq, launched from Turkish ground would have made a counter-attack by
Iraq on Turkey a viable mean of defence, according to international law,
and therefore I do even doubt Article 5 had any effect anyway. But since
Turkey decided to deny access to US forces, the matter pretty much disolved.
But before I am getting carried away:
Turkey did not need any bolstering of their forces by NATO allies from a
practical point of view. The Turkish army by itself would be quite
enough to deal with the Iraqi threat, if it had arisen... and in case an
unprovoked attack on Turkey by Iraq had happened, ample time was at hand
to move NATO forces to Turkey.
The point was that in France's/Belgium's opinion, NATO bolstering of
Turkish forces would've freed up US forces from engaging Iraq (an attack
that was doubtful under international law), and could have provoked not
just Iraq but also Iran, which also has valid interest in the region.
So, there is no right to veto, as there is no vote. But due to the setup
of NATO, which is a composite organization, decisions have to be
unanimously (especially when this is about commiting military forces...).
NATO has moved out of the cold war era, especially now that the
Europeans assert a more self-assured posture. Up to the early nineties
NATO was little better than the United States' European continental
saber, but with a more central role especially of the united Germany and
a more important EU, it is moving closer to a true trans-atlantic
partnership... and with any good partnership, as with any good marriage,
you have to live with disagreements.
The true quiescent purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty... *cough*
Article 1:
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United
Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be
involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
>
> First - and importantly, there is no right to a veto in NATO, in its North
> Atlantic Council. This notion is utterly false and flies in the face of one
> on the major reasons why the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO were created in
> the first place. One of the major reasons why the leaders of the North
> Atlantic democracies walked away from the UN Security Council back in
> 1947-49 was due to the absolute veto in the UN Security Council and its
> abuse by the Soviets. The leaders of the North Atlantic democracies then
> formed their own security and political pact, the North Atlantic pact. The
> absolute veto was not to be a part of this North Atlantic pact and it is
> historical fallacy to suggest that there should be a veto in NATO.
They did not walk away from the UN... this is quite a misconception.
NATO cannot replace the UN, as this organization provides a lot more
than NATO ever can. NATO on the other hand provided protection, it was
both cause and effect of the evolving cold war.
Again, there is no vote in the NAC, therefore there is no veto. NATO was
never designed anything but a uniting defensive effort, therefore no
majority vote is necessary in the NAC. And it would be highly dangerous
to make the decisions at the NAC level with a majority vote, because at
this level you can decide about deploying military forces!
> Second, just where the Alliance picked up the notion that decision-making
> must be by consensus is rather unclear, as of now, to this Author. This
> Author has engaged in some research into the notion of the consensus habit
> of the Alliance. Tracing exactly where the Alliance picked up the notion of
> decisions by consensus will have to be greatly researched. It appears as if
> the "habit of consensus" grew out of the need for unity in the face of the
> threat from the Soviet Union. This "need for unity" was demonstrated on
> April 4th 1949. The Atlantic world had to show this unity as a form of
> spiritual warfare against Soviet communist aggression.
A communist aggression that was mainly a propaganda sham, I might add.
Europe has been pretty much divided between the USSR and the western
powers at the end of WW2, and both parties pretty much adhered to this
(as can be seen from the lacking support for communist rebels in Greece
by the USSR, or from failure to help both the Hungarian and Prague
uprising on part of the US/UK).
It is only natural that among sovereign nations decisions should be made
by consensus, in fact, the "habit of consesus" has established NATO.
Making the decision making process privy to a majority vote would mean
to ceede total control of the nations military assets to NATO, due to
the integrated command structure.
> As the Alliance expands to 26 members, it will need not only a more
> realistic decision-making process, but will need to become more of a
> political alliance and less of a military alliance. The NATO Alliance
> already performs political functions in its requirements NATO aspirants in
> the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and regular membership. And many of
> these requirements for NATO membership involve non-military reforms, such as
> free elections and human rights. The idea of the Alliance taking on a more
> political function as it continues to function in a military-security
> capacity will be required. What will also be required is another shift in
> the Cold War worldview of NATO as the "military only" alliance defined
> exclusively in terms of "arms, armies, troops, ships and American bases in
> Europe."
Free elections and human rights are a pre-requisite for joining NATO, as
NATO derives much of its authority from the UN charter. But making NATO
more than it is now would mean devaluating the UN... a fatal step.
The view of NATO already has changed in the past 10 years. It has
asserted a more equal stance on both sides of the atlantic, and it has
furthered security and peace in a recuperating eastern Europe. But, NATO
is a military alliance, and that is all it should be, as it is perfectly
good in its role.
If a closer relation between Europe and North America is needed, it is
best not to change a "winning team", but establish a new organization,
because of NATO's legacy and role as a military alliance.
> So then, we of the Atlantic Alliance must now revisit the quiescent, second
> purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty. That is, the political and cultural
> advancement of Atlantic democracy and principals. We must understand that
> the new threats are from the fluid al-Qaeda, not the static Warsaw Pact.
> This means that we must have some unity, but not the stifling and paralyzing
> habit of consensus. Included in this we must drop the historically false
> notion and incorrect rule that a single country has a veto in the Alliance's
> North Atlantic Council. NO veto in NATO exists and NO NATO member has a veto
> in the Council!
NATO is totally unfit to fight al-Qaeda, and so it should be. Al-Qaeda
is not a military organization, and therefore it is very hard to fight
with military force. This is a matter of internal security, and pray
god, you don't want NATO messing with that.
Al-Qaeda and terrorism must be combated on a different scale, you have
to "attack" it culturally and ideologically, socially and with security
assets. Whiel surgical strikes and commando operations help, for that
NATO is more of a hinderance, because of the logistical overhead NATO has.
Again, there is no vote, therefore there is no veto... the decisions of
the NAC are based upon consensus, which is very sensible, otherwise the
member nations lose a very big part of their sovereignity.
> We must place our Atlantic Alliance above the wishes of just one
> memberstate's interests. We must rediscover the meaning of the Article Four,
> the consultation article. The true Atlantic Alliance is something that Tony
> Blair understands and this brave British leader had expressed this in his
> address to the US Congress a couple of weeks ago. We must, on both sides of
> the Atlantic, rediscover the true meanings and purposes of North Atlantic
> Treaty. A large part of accomplishing this task is realizing that the Cold
> War is over and that NATO needs to be brought out of the Cold War too.
Article 4 is working just fine. Consultations are ongoing. Where do you
see the problem?
Tony Blair may be very trans-atlantically bound, but he has severe
trouble understanding the European partners in NATO. Plus, it appears,
that he had to bolster his nation's braveness with forged evidence...
hardly worthy of a democratic leader, because this is betraying our very
ideals.
NATO is important, trans-atlanticism is important, BUT don't rush NATO
into something it is not fit to do.
International terrorism is best fought with consensus, and that is best
reached within the UN. There will be no disagreement with fighting
al-Qaeda there, unlike the Iraq-question (hmmm, a military operation
which has given rise to fundamentalist terrorists, I might add), and you
can reach a lot more through those legitimate channels. Especially since
NATO derives its authority from the UN (see: Article One).
Just let it be said, I am a huge fan of NATO, and I appreciate your
efforts on NATO's behalf very much, but I believe that your view of the
situation and NATO's political structure is a bit too... well, goal
oriented.
Cheers
Sascha Hauke
--
Up until last week, I thought posting was easy. Now I have one less
illusion and a decent news client.