Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Staying alive by overeating? The enduring NATO alliance at 70

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Transatlantic Studies Aims and scope

Abstract

NATO’s endurance is unique relative to alliances and other intergovernmental organizations of the post-Westphalian system. The degree to which NATO endures or indeed thrives appears to be a function of the continued relevance of the old security agenda and the concomitant importance of the new agenda that member states have thrust upon it. The paradox is that it remains increasingly difficult for NATO to achieve its objectives in both spheres—that is, in terms of adequately deterring Russia and assuring the newest member states of Eastern Europe, while simultaneously safeguarding the south from an array of sub-state or non-state actor challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The author is indebted to Sten Rynning, Jordan Becker, Andrew Cottey, and David Dunn for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

  2. See, for example, Johnston [1], Sloan [2], Sayle [3], Duignan [4], Moore and Coletta [5], Asmus [6], Kaplan [7], Michta and Hilde [8], Rupp [9], Mulchinock [10], Kaplan [11], and Olsen [12].

  3. The alliance avoided engagement in crises outside Europe during the Cold War. Moreover, although the conventional wisdom is that NATO ameliorated bilateral rivalries among allies, some argue the alliance did just the opposite—i.e., that membership in NATO freed smaller member states to focus on their regional rivals. For example, since Greece and Turkey joined the alliance, NATO’s southeastern flank has been riven with conflict—see Krebs [13]. As cited by Krebs, see also Jervis [14] for a similar story regarding Spain and how it turned to focus on long-standing regional rivalries after it acceded to the alliance.

  4. From June 2005 to December 2007, NATO provided air transport for some 37,000 African Union personnel conducting peacekeeping activities in Sudan.

  5. Initially, NATO enforced a no-fly zone, and then, on March 31, 2011, NATO took over sole command and control of all military operations for Libya, including enforcing an arms embargo and conducting air and naval strikes against military forces involved in attacks or threats to attack Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas.

  6. See Yost [15].

  7. See Kay [16] and Smith [17]. Smith argues that NATO member states ‘refashioned’ their military forces away from heavy, territorial defense and toward rapid reaction, expeditionary operations.

  8. See NATO [18].

  9. In October 2016, NATO terminated Operation Active Endeavor—focused on detecting and deterring terrorist activity in the Mediterranean—and replaced it with Operation Sea Guardian, a flexible maritime operation able to perform the full range of maritime security operations tasks.

  10. Figures from NATO [19].

  11. See NATO [20].

  12. See NATO [21].

  13. See NATO [22].

  14. See Deni [23].

  15. Interview with a civilian member of NATO’s international secretariat, July 15, 2014.

  16. See National Counterintelligence and Security Center [24] and NATO [25].

  17. See Allied Command Transformation [26].

  18. See NATO [27].

  19. There is a rich international relations theory literature existing on the Alliance. See, for example, Webber and Price [28].

  20. See Walt [29].

  21. See Altfeld [30].

  22. This is the case at least theoretically. Finland provides an example of a country that is very proximate to a threat but that exhibited no external balancing behavior, particularly during the Cold War.

  23. See Thompson [31].

  24. See Thompson [32] and Haas [33].

  25. See Johnston [34].

  26. Wallander and Keohane [35].

  27. See Siverson and Emmons [36] and Smith [37].

  28. See Barnett and Levy [38].

  29. See Thies [39].

  30. See House overwhelmingly backs NATO mutual defense [40].

  31. See Schimmelfennig [41].

  32. See Ackerman [42].

  33. See O'Brien [43].

  34. See Stanley-Becker [44].

  35. See Haas [45]. Haas defines organizational learning as a reexamination of the purposes of the organization in question, based on a knowledge-mediated, decision-making dynamic. Incremental growth occurs when member states or organizational leaders add new tasks to older ones without any change in the organization’s decision-making methodology. Finally, turbulent non-growth occurs when there are major changes in organizational decision-making, ends no longer cohere, and there are significant disconnects between ends and means.

  36. See Gheciu [46].

  37. See Deni [47].

  38. Interview with a civilian member of NATO’s international staff, July 15, 2014.

  39. See, for example, Weiss [48], and Jordan [49].

  40. For an examination of how this applies to the USA, see Brands and Feaver [50].

References

  1. Johnston, Seth A. 2017. How NATO Adapts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sloan, Stanley R. 2010. Permanent Alliance?: NATO and the Transatlantic Bargain from Truman to Obama. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sayle, Timothy Andrews. 2019. Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Duignan, Peter. 2000. NATO: Its Past, Present and Future. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Moore, Rebecca R., and Damon Coletta (eds.). 2017. NATO’s Return to Europe: Engaging Ukraine, Russia, and Beyond. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Asmus, Ronald D. 2004. Opening NATO’s Door: How the Alliance Remade Itself for a New Era. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan, Lawrence. 2004. NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Michta, Andrew A., and Paal S. Hilde (eds.). 2014. The Future of NATO: Regional Defense and Global Security. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rupp, Richard. 2006. NATO After 9/11: An Alliance in Continuing Decline. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulchinock, Niall. 2017. NATO and the Western Balkans: From Neutral Spectator to Proactive Peacemaker. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaplan, Lawrence S. 2014. The United States and NATO: The Formative Years. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Olsen, John Andreas. 2017. NATO and the North Atlantic: Revitalising Collective Defence. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Krebs, Ronald R. 1999. Perverse Institutionalism: NATO and the Greco-Turkish Conflict. International Organization 53(2): 343–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jervis, Robert. 1973. Security Regimes. In International Regimes, ed. Stephen Krasner, 173–194. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yost, David. 1998. NATO Transformed: The Alliance’s New Roles in International Security. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kay, Sean. 1998. NATO and the Future of European Security, 127–8, 131–4. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

  17. Smith, Martin. 2000. NATO in the First Decade After the Cold War, 60–97. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. NATO. 2017. NATO’s role in Kosovo. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48818.htm#. Accessed 26 July 2018.

  19. NATO. 2018. Operations and missions: past and present. www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm. Accessed 9 July 2018.

  20. NATO. 2015. NATO Mediterranean Dialogue. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_60021.htm. Accessed 26 July 2018.

  21. NATO. 2004. NATO training mission arrives in Iraq. www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-1B1DA19C-2E2214C1/natolive/news_20780.htm. Accessed 26 July 2018.

  22. NATO. 2011. Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI): Reaching out to the broader Middle East. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_58787.htm. Accessed 26 July 2018.

  23. Deni, John R. 2018. The West’s Confusion over Russia’s Cyberwars. Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/75740. Accessed 27 July 2018.

  24. National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Foreign Economic Espionage in Cyberspace. 2018. www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/news/20180724-economic-espionage-pub.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2018.

  25. NATO. 2017. Science for Peace and Security Programme. www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/topics_85373.htm. Accessed 27 July 2018.

  26. Allied Command Transformation. 2017. Strategic Foresight Analysis, 3. www.act.nato.int/images/stories/media/doclibrary/171004_sfa_2017_report_hr.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2018.

  27. NATO. 2018. Brussels Summit Declaration. Press Release (2018) 074, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, July 11, 2018. www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm. Accessed 31 July 2018.

  28. Webber, Mark, and Adrian Hyde Price (eds.). 2014. Theorizing NATO: New Perspectives on the Atlantic Alliance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Altfeld, Michael F. 1984. The Decision to Ally: A Theory and Test. The Western Political Quarterly 37(4): 523–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action (originally published by McGraw-Hill, 1967), 15. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  32. Thompson, James D. 2017. Organizations in Action, 24. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Haas, Ernst. 1990. When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations, 55. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston, Seth. 2017. How NATO Adapts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wallander, Celeste A., and Robert O. Keohane. 1995. An Institutional Approach to Alliance Theory. Working paper, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.

  36. Siverson, Randolph, and Juliann Emmons. 1991. Birds of a feather: democratic political systems and alliance choices in the twentieth century. Journal of Conflict Resolution 35: 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith, Alastair. 1995. Alliance Formation and War. International Studies Quarterly 39: 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Barnett, Michael N., and Jack S. Levy. 1991. Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt, 1962–73. International Organization 45(3): 369–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thies, Wallace. 2009. Why NATO Endures. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. House overwhelmingly backs NATO mutual defence. 2017. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nato-congress/house-overwhelmingly-backs-nato-mutual-defence-idUSKBN19I30Y. Accessed 9 July 2018.

  41. Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2007. Nato enlargement: a constructivist explanation. Security Studies 8(2–3): 198–234.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ackerman, Elliot. 2017. Turkey Is a Dictatorship Masquerading as a NATO Democracy,’ Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/29/the-dictatorship-in-natos-clubhouse-erdogan-kurds-turkey/. Accessed 24 July 2018.

  43. O’Brien, Matt. 2018. Democracy is dying in Hungary. The rest of the world should worry,’ Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/12/democracy-is-dying-in-hungary-the-rest-of-the-world-should-worry/?utm_term=.21d125c07495. Accessed 24 July 2018.

  44. Stanley-Becker, Isaac. 2017. ‘Poland’s long march toward democracy is threatened by quick steps away from it,’ Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/polands-long-march-toward-democracy-is-threatened-by-quick-steps-away-from-it/2017/07/22/45a6b976-6e46-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html?utm_term=.93b942853e07. Accessed 24 July 2018.

  45. Haas, Ernst. 1990. When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gheciu, Alexandra. 2005. Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe”. International Organization 59(4): 973–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Deni, John R. 2014. Perfectly Flawed? The Evolution of NATO’s Force Generation Process. In NATO’s Post-Cold War Politics: The Changing Provision of Security, ed. Sebastian Mayer. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Weiss, Thomas G. 1982. International Bureaucracy: The Myth and Reality of the International Civil Service. International Affairs 58(2): 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jordan, Robert S. 1967. The NATO International Staff/Secretariat, 1952–1957. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Brands, Hal, and Peter D. Feaver. 2017. What Are America’s Alliances Good For? Parameters 47(2): 15–30. http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/Issues/Summer_2017/5_BrandsFeaver_WhatAreAmericasAlliancesGoodFor.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Army War College, 47 Ashburn Drive, Carlisle, PA, 17013, USA

    John R. Deni

Authors
  1. John R. Deni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Deni.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Government, the US Department of Defense, or the US Army.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deni, J.R. Staying alive by overeating? The enduring NATO alliance at 70. J Transatl Stud 17, 157–173 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-019-00012-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-019-00012-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation