Impact of Brexit and US on NATO

Impact of Brexit and US on NATONATOOrigin, membership, rolesThe Brussels agreement of 1948 marked the setoff step in the creation of the jointure Atlantic Alliance, culminating in April 19491 with the signature of the Treaty of Washington. The outcome of that Treaty was a joint warranter system among 12 countries Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the united Kingdom, and the United States. NATO is an intergovernmental political and array bail of collective defence, through which its 28 member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by whatsoever external party. Moreover, 23 other(a) countries cooperate through NATO league for Peace program which began in 1991. Seeking to stabilize the Middle East, in 1994 The Alliance launched the Mediterranean Dialogue with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. In 2004 NATO began the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with four countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Fin all toldy, NATO cooperates in joint shelter issues with five countries in Asia, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand, and ii in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Until the Korean contend, NATO was predominantly a political brass instrument. Following the war an integrated soldiers framework was established under the command of two US supreme commanders. To prevent a nuclear war, the Alliance expanded its rush and adopted the Massive Retaliation policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it conducted a series of military interventions in Bosnia in 1992 and later in 1999 in Kosovo. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which linked the alliance in 1999, 2004 and 2009. Since then the Alliance has performed a variety of additional roles, such(prenominal) as providing trainers to Iraq and Afg hanistan, assisting in counter-piracy operations2 as comfortably as imposing a non-fly zone over Libya based on UNSC Resolution 1973. Member states view of the institution, wallop of BREXIT and US pivotMember states view of the institutionSupport for NATO is general among member nations, is the conclusion of the Spring 2016Global Attitudes Survey.3 This survey, held by Pew ResearchCenter included nine EU countries such as theNetherland, Poland, UK, Italy, Germany, Hungary, France, Spain and Greece, aswell as the U.S. and Canada, finds mostly positive views of the Organization. Around57% of them expressed positive opinions of the Alliance, with only 27% of themvoicing negative views. The strongest support for thealliance comes from the Netherland and Poland while Greece appears to be the most critical NATO member. Even though Mr.Trump the Republican presidential nominee at that time, has regarded NATO asbeing obsolete, when asked if being a member of thepost-World War II security a lliance was good or bad for the U.S., 77% respondedyes, while only 16% expressed negative views. However, regardless ofincreasing security threats, most member states surveyed remain reluctant to increasetheir countries falsifying spending. Around 32% of the members surveyed say their fields military spending should be boosted, almost 47% of them favorcontinuing with the same spending and only 14% say their military spendingshould decrease.Notwithstanding, growing tensions with Russia over the conflict inUkraine, the alliance members polled remain divided on whether their countries should provide military support to an allyif it got into a military conflict with Russia.4 Approximately 48% amongeight NATO countries favored their country providing military support to defendallies, and 42% across the eight members opposed the use of force.Impact of BREXIT and US pivotAlthough we moderate heard much about(predicate) the political and economic consequences from BREXIT, there areinsuff icient arguments about its security and geopolitical fallout. Even thoughin the short run there efficiency non be any negative impact, there are reasonable concernsabout Brexits impact on NATO in the long run. Among many convert europiumaniststhere is a group of far-right parties, in France, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Denmark,Italy and elsewhere which not only are anti-European, xenophobic and profoundlyanti-American, just now they are great sympathizers of Putins authoritarian regime.If those parties come into power, it might fluctuate the politics of theircountries against NATO, and destruct the alliance from providing securitywithin and beyond its b instals.Anotherreason for concern might be the emerging prospect of Scotlands secession andan uncertain future of sumern Ireland which might cause the UK to be moreisolationists and less militarily engaged. Brexit might impact the future ofmilitary cooperation between France and Britain, two European NATO members withthe largest military firepower, regarded as the engine of Common Security andDefense insurance of the European Union. With the UK leaving the Union, if notimpossible it will become distant, and in the coming divisions the responsibilityfor European security will immensely rest on NATO.On the other hand, maintainingNATOs coherence and available hard-hittingness lies to a great degree on America.Recently, Washington has made it clear that it expects member countries to spendmore in defense and is urging the European Union to ca-ca a leading role incrisis management and decrease its dependence on the U.S.During his electoral compress president Donald Trump dismissed NATO as obsolete,while his Secretary of State James Mattis told NATO defence ministers inBrussels that Americans cannot care more for your childrens future securitythan you do5. However, atthe Security Conference, held from 17-19 February 2017 in Munich, the US Vice President, Michael Pence seemed to reaffirm Alliance members tha tthe US would remain committed to continue to extend Russia accountable6 for its illegal actions inCrimea and Ukraine.Approach to the risks and effectiveness of that approachRussiaNATObegan to interact with Russia in 1991, when Russia became member of the NorthAtlantic Cooperation Council and later in 1994 member of the Partnership forPeace programme. However it was NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 which definedthe formal foundation for future relations. For more than 25 five years, NATOhas attempted to develop a federation with Russia, building dialogue and reasonablecooperation in fields of common interest. Such dialogue and cooperation culminatedwith the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) in 2002, which served as aconsultation forum for security issues and cooperation in a wide span of fields.Formal meetings of the NRC and cooperation submit been suspended until spring2009, in response to Russias military intervention in grand 2008 in Georgia.The Alliance persistentl y has required from Russia to reverse its recognitionof Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Russian aggression inUkraine led to suspension of all civilian and military cooperation of the NRC inApril 2014. However, channels of political dialogue and military communicationremain open. During the Wales Summit in September2014, NATO leaders condemned Russias military intervention in Ukraine anddemanded that Russia comply with international law and its internationalobligations and responsibilities.7NATO remains concerned about Russias increased and destabilizing pattern ofmilitary activities along NATO borders as well as aggressive rhetoric, which makethe security environment unstable and unpredictable. The Alliance and Russiahave deep and continuous discrepancies yet, NATO does not strive for confrontationand does not represent threat to Russia.terrorismInternational terrorist act we currentlyface, presents a complex, perpetual threat that demands for an all-inclusive, mu ltidimensionalstrategic approach which encompasses NATO as well. The early line of reasoning on NATOs propercounterterrorism roles and missions mirrored two approaches thewar approach adopted predominantly by the United States and therisk-management approach, supported by many European ally. These Alliessee the war approach as unsuitable, because terrorism cannot bedefeated unless its root causes are being addressed which for them cannot bedone by military means. The war approach has the tendency to employ a strategythat stresses offensive and preventive measures, while the risk-management approachhas the tendency to call for more defensive measures. Therefore, an effectivecounter-terrorism approach must encompass elements of both strategies. Regardless of these discrepancies allallies are in unison about the danger posedby terrorism and have decided to face it. Followingthe attacks on theTwin Towers, the NATO allies for the first time invoked Article 5 of theWashington Treaty the collective defense clause8by deploying troops in Afghanistan under theNATO-led ISAF. Meanwhile, immediately after 11September 2001, NATO changed almost in a radical manner its strategicpriorities and geopolitical vision, in order to adapt the organization and itsmember states to the nature of the threat. The fundamental approach, defined inNATOs military judgment for defence against terrorism, encompasses fourcomponents anti terrorism defensive measures consequence management counter terrorismoffensive measures and military co-operation to include partners, and internationalorganizations such as the United Nations, the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe and the European Union.9Through its programme of exercises, NATO play a key role in training forfighting terrorism which offers unique opportunities for integratedcivil-military operations to counter terrorist attacks. Alliance also plays a substantialearly warning role through. achievement Active Endeavour10,with i ts unique capabilities for aircraft and missile early warning. In drop anchorof consequence management, NATO provides unique support capabilities to facethe consequences of a terrorist attack, through its Euro-Disaster ResponseCoordination Centre11.Moreover, Alliance is well-suited to play a preventive role by providing itsassets such as AWACS aircraft, maritime patrols and CBRN defence capabilities.A good example to be mentioned is the support given to Greece during theOlympic and Paralympics Games. Contributionto the global approach by the Alliance on fighting against terrorism wasarticulated openly in the NATO CT Policy Guidelines, endorsed at the ChicagoSummit of 2012.12 Twoyears later, on May 2014, NATO sanction an Action Plan which defines the tasks and assigns responsibilities based on the policyguidance.13Refugees illegal migrationTherefugee and migrant crisis of the recent years is by all means the worsthumanitarian crisis Europehas faced after the World War Two. Challe nges in the Europeanneighborhoods coming simultaneously from both the Eastern Flank by Russia andthe Southern Flank, by refugees, migration and terrorism, have imposed NATO to reshapeits capabilities. In addition to its commitment to reassurance measures in theEastern Flankas well as its contribution to transatlantic intelligence coordination againstterrorism, NATO is combat-ready in the international endeavor to hold backillegal migration and trafficking in the Aegean. The Alliance is closelycooperating with national coastguards, and Frontex, the border managementagency of the EU, in order to monitor the illegalcrossings in the Aegean Sea and combat human trafficking. Followingthe NATO Defence Ministers meeting on 26 and 27 October last year inthe context of the implementation of Resolution 2292 UNSCR on the situation inLibya the Alliance agreed to support the EU-led Operation Sophia in the central Mediterranean. This commitmentincludes a scaleof capabilities such as Intelligence , Surveillance and Reconnaissance,logistics support as well as contribution to capacity building of the Libyancoastguard and navy, if requested. In that context on 9 November 2016, NATO launched Operation Sea Guardian with an extensive scope inresponse to awide- ranging maritime security threats.14Inter-institutional cooperation, coordination and integrationThe gravity of challenges posed by the Balkanconflicts since 1991, and NATOs commitment in Afghanistan a decade later, havebeen the key drivers of its progressively immense cooperation with otherinternational organizations. Such organizations posses mandate and capabilitieswhich the Alliance lacks, but that are vital to meeting international securitychallenges. NATO and the United NationsThe Alliance needs the UNSC resolutions as alegal foundation for non-Article 5 operations as well as to justify thelegitimacy for such operations. On the other hand, the UN needs NATO for its expertise,resources, and unmatched capabilities to pro vide far-reaching support and to sustainan extended commitment. Coordination between the two organizations has occasionallybeen dissatisfactory, particularlyin Bosnia and Herzegovina where NATO and UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) failedto defend Srebrenica designated as safe area by UN. This flawed experiencehas been contributing to better formula and renewal of UNSC resolutionsmandating operations, especially in the field of command and controlarrangements.In September 2005 a NATO UN frameworkagreement was proposed, designed to provide a twist for continuous cooperationat all levels rather than crisis situations collaboration. Such cooperationcould help the UN and many of its member states -which perceive NATO as a ColdWar military organization tobetter understand the Alliances consensual decision-making processes. Inthe Comprehensive Political Guidance endorsed at the Riga summit of November2006, NATO members agreed that, As in Afghanistan, success in Kosovo willdepend on a con certed effort. Accordingly, NATO activity to provide a secureenvironment will continue to be coordinated with the activities of the UN, theEU and the OSCE to build governance and support reform.15NATO and the European UnionNATO-EUcooperation dates back to the Cold War. However an important step towards aneffective cooperation was marked at the Washington Summit in April 199916,where the cooperation principles of the June 1996 agreements in Berlin knownas Berlin Plus where approved. It took the two organizations from April 1999to declination 2002 to formalize this agreement, in order to allow NATO to supportEU-led operations. Operation Concordia from inch to December 2003, in theFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was the first EU-led peacekeeping operation,commanded by a NATO operational commander, where Alliances assets were providedto the EU. Comparably, in December 2004 the NATO-led operation StabilizationForce (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, began to transition to an EU-l edoperation named Althea under the Berlin Plus framework. Once again, thecommander responsible for this Operation was NATOs DSACEUR. In addition, KFOR,NATOs peacekeeping force in Kosovo, cooperates closely with EULEX, the EUsRule of Law Mission quite alike as NATO-led ISAF and RSM missions inAfghanistan have cooperated with EUPOL, the EUs Rule of Law Mission. NATOsOcean Shield and the EUs EUNAVFOR Atalanta naval forces are cooperatingclosely for anti-piracy missions, since September 2008, in Somalia. At thestrategic level, NATO and the EU meet on a regular basis at the level offoreign ministers, ambassadors, military representatives and defence advisors. Regularmeetings also take place for staff-to-staff talks at all levels between AlliancesInternational Staff and International Military Staff, and their EU counterparts.For mutual cooperation at the operational level, in 2005 NATO established aPermanent Liaison Team at the EU Military Staff. Similarly, an EU Cell was setup in 2006 at Alliances strategic command for operations in Mons, Belgium.NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)Distinctlyfrom the UN, NATO, and the EU, the OSCE is based on political commitments noton treaty arrangements. Generally speaking, Alliance has not been directly engagedin OSCE operations, it has only been providing support for planning, information,and communications, security and logistics, of OSCE activities in places where NATOforces have already been deployed. The first notable cooperation of this kind wasthe operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990s. Few years later, in order tosupport OSCEs verification mission on the ground in Kosovo, NATO conducted an airreconnaissance mission named Operation Eagle Eye from October 1998 to March1999. During the same period the Alliance organized an Extraction Force brisk to evacuate OSCE personnel from Kosovo in an emergency. NATO has alsocooperated with the OSCE and the EU during the 2001 crisisin the Forme r Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.Apart from NATO-OSCE cooperation during Balkan crisis, the two organizations have interacted in other areas such as border security issues, anti-terrorism, combating human trafficking, regional cooperation, etc., mainly in Central Asia, SE Europe and the south Caucasus. It is worth mentioning that there has been little mission competition between NATO and the OSCE due to the fact that the later is particularly focused on specific domains. ReferencesNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization, The North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. 4 April 1949, NATO e-Library, accessed at http//www.nato.int/cycles/second/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm.North Atlantic Treaty Organization,Counter piracy operations, NATO Newsroom, 19 December 2016, accessedat http//www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48815.htm.Charter, David and Wright, Oliver, US gives ultimatum over NATO spending, February 16 2017, The Sunday Times, accessed at http//www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-deliver s-ultimatum-over-nato-spending-rg55vrrbvThomas, Ken, Rising, David and Moulson, Geir, Mike Pence Says US To Hold Russia Accountable, Stand With Nato, The Independent, accessed at http//www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mike-pence-nato-hold-russia-accountable-munich-angela-merkel-vladimir-putin-a7587891.htmlNorthAtlantic Treaty Organization, Wales Summit Declaration, accessed at http//www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm.Cuddington, Danielle Support for NATO is general among member nations, July 2016, Spring Global Attitude Survey, Pew Research Center, accessed at http//www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/06/support-for-nato-is-widespread-among-member-nationsCuddington, Danielle Support for NATO is widespread among member nations, July 2016, Spring 2015 Global Attitude Survey, pew Research Center, accessed at http//www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/06/support-for-nato-is-widespread-among-member-nationsNorthAtlantic Treaty Organization, NATOs military t heory for defence againstterrorism, 21November 2002, accessed athttp//www.fransamaltingvongeusau.com/documents/dl2/h3/2.3.25.pdfNorthAtlantic Treaty Organization, Operation Active Endeavour, 27 October 2016,accessed at http//www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_7932.htm?selectedLocale=enNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization, Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre, 7 April 2016, NATO e-Library, accessed at http//www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52057.htm?selectedLocale=enNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATOs Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism, accessed at http//www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/ct-policy-guidelines.pdfArgano, M. Elena, A stronger NATO means a stronger Europe. Sea Guardian and Operation Sophiatogether, 15 November 2016, accessed at https//europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2016/11/15/a-stronger-nato-means-a-stronger-europe-sea-guardian-and-operation-sophia-together/.North Atlantic Council,Riga Summit Declaration, 29November 2006, p ar. 9,accessed athttp//www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_37920.htm.NorthAtlantic Council, Washington SummitCommuniqu, 24 April 1999, par. 10, accessed at http//www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-064e.htm.1 AtlanticTreaty Organization,The North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. 4April 1949, http//www.nato.int,(Accessed on 04 March 2017).2North Atlantic TreatyOrganization, Counter piracyoperations,NATO Newsroom, 19 December 2016, http//www.nato.int, (Accessed on 04 March 2017).3 Cuddington, Danielle Supportfor NATO is widespread among member nations, July 2016,Spring Global Attitude Survey, Pew ResearchCenter, http//www.pewglobal.org(Accessed on 04 March 2017).4 Cuddington, Danielle Supportfor NATO is widespread among member nations, July 2016,Spring 2015Global Attitude Survey, pew Research Center, http//www.pewglobal.org/, (Accessedon 04 March 2017).5Charter, Davidand Wright, Oliver, US gives ultimatum over Nato spending,February 16 2017, The Sunday Times, http//www.thetimes.co.uk , accessedon 12 March 2017.6 Thomas, Ken, Rising, David and Moulson, Geir, Mike Pence says US to hold Russia accountable, standwith Nato, The Indipendent, http//www.independent.co.uk,accessed on 12 March 2017.7Wales Summit Declaration, North Atlantic Treaty Organization http//www.nato.int(Accessed on 04 March 2017). 8NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization, The NorthAtlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. 4 April 1949, NATO e-Library, http//www.nato.int(accessed on 3 April 2017).9North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATOsmilitary concept for defence against terrorism, 21November 2002, http//www.fransamaltingvongeusau.com(accessed on 4 April 2017).10North Atlantic Treaty Organization, OperationActive Endeavour, 27 October 2016,NATO e-Library http//www.nato.int(accessed on 4 April 2017).11North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Euro-AtlanticDisaster Response Coordination Centre, 7 April 2016, NATO e-Library, http//www.nato.int(accessed on 4 April 2017).12 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATOs poli cyGuidelines on Counter Terrorism, 20-21May 2014, http//www.nato.int/nato (accessedon 4 April 2017).13 This is a classified document, not for public release.14 Argano,M. Elena, A stronger NATO means a strongerEurope. Sea Guardian and Operation Sophiatogether, 15 November 2016, https//europe-liberte-securite-justice.org,(accessed on 12 April 2017).15North Atlantic Council, Riga Summit Declaration, 29 November2006, http//www.nato.int, (accessed on 4 April 2017).16 North Atlantic Council, Washington Summit Communiqu,24 April 1999, http//www.nato.int,(accessed on 4 April 2017).