In his stirring Second Inaugural Address, President Bush vowed that it is “the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Troubles in the Iraq war, however, have instigated a broader sense of national cynicism in the President’s democracy agenda. This is unfortunate. Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, liberal democracies have demonstrated a remarkable ability to attain economic prosperity, protect human rights, and secure a zone of peace and stability in the global system. With the military tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States must nevertheless use its diplomatic leverage to keep democracy promotion on the international agenda. NATO expansion offers the United States precisely such an opportunity. Given its success as a democratic security alliance in the last six decades, NATO could function as an effective global security alliance by expanding to include stable democracies around the world.
Throughout the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) served as a bulwark in Europe against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact by providing a security guarantee for Western democracies. The origins of NATO can be traced to the Treaty of Brussels, signed in 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom. The treaty established a military alliance, later to become the Western European Union. However, American participation was deemed necessary in order to counter the rising aggression of the Soviet Union. The talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Three years later, Greece and Turkey joined. Though France left the integrated military command in 1966, it rejoined in 1995. The incorporation of West Germany into the organization in 1955 effectively set the stage for the Cold War, as the Soviet Union and its satellite states established the Warsaw Pact in response. Until the end of the Cold War, Spain, in 1982, was the only new country to join the alliance.
The core of NATO is Article V, which provides that an attack against any member of the alliance will be considered an attack against all. As an alliance, NATO’s success has been astounding; through the darkest days of the Cold War it arguably deterred westward aggression by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact through a strong commitment to détente in Europe. Moreover, the alliance played a crucial role in stabilizing and democratizing the formerly authoritarian regimes of Germany and Italy. In providing an anchor for the rest of Europe, NATO reinforced newly formed democratic institutions and subdued any revival of expansionist sentiment.
Since the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991, NATO has experienced a gradual and still ongoing expansion into Eastern Europe and has taken on a more proactive role in global security. The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany. In 1994, NATO took its first military action against Serbia, ending the war in Bosnia through the Dayton Agreement. Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums of regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were established, such as the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. In 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, accepted NATO membership, and joined the alliance in 1999. The same year, NATO launched its first broad-scale military engagement in Kosovo, waging an air campaign against Yugoslavia. The conflict ended when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic agreed to NATO’s demands by accepting UN resolution 1244. NATO’s operation and geographical scope increased after 9/11. NATO invoked Article V and took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, the first time it took on a mission outside the north Atlantic. Membership was further expanded with the accession of seven Eastern European countries in 2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.
With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of NATO’s main adversary, a strategic reevaluation of NATO’s purpose is needed in the new international system. Strikingly, over one decade since the end of the Cold War, while NATO has expanded its membership and scope of its operations, it has not established a clear grand strategy or a core set of guiding principles. For instance, NATO describes its criteria for membership in the following vague terms: “NATO has an open door policy with regard to enlargement. Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.” NATO’s recent policy decisions further exemplify its lack of vision. In line with its historic role as a European bulwark of democracies, NATO has expanded to include the new democracies of Eastern Europe. At the same time, however, as Russia relapses into authoritarianism, NATO nevertheless considers Russia a “partner country,” as formalized in the creation of the NATO-Russia Council. Even more perplexing is the Mediterranean Dialogue, which seeks to “contribute to regional security and stability, achieve better mutual understanding and dispel any misconceptions about NATO among Dialogue countries,” includes: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. NATO’s vague expansion and compromise of democratic principles represents a deeper lack of a grand strategy and clear set guiding values in the post-Cold War global order.
Forging an effective policy for NATO requires a reassessment of assumptions and goals relating to the post-Cold War international system. The ability of democracies to sustain peace and human rights and secure economic prosperity, suggests the wisdom of ensuring the security and spread of democracy in the world. The primary step in protecting democracies from external threats is to forge a military alliance to guarantee their security. Such an alliance would assure their security by obligating each member nation, particularly the United States, to come to the defense of any other alliance member that is attacked. Given its dramatic success as a democratic security alliance in Europe, NATO could well serve as a global security alliance, expanding to include stable democracies around the world. Aside from NATO, the United States already has treaty commitments providing similar security guarantees with nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. NATO ought to incorporate these non-European commitments into one overarching global security organization, guaranteeing the security of these democratic states. Beginning with these nations with whom the United States already has long-standing security relationships, NATO would eventually grow to include the newly democratized nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The NATO-based network would benefit all of its members because of its fundamental assumption: democracies do not make war on one another. They would defend themselves by banding together against threatening authoritarian states.
Such a proposal must be implemented with prudence. Too rapid an expansion of newly democratized states could weaken the effectiveness of the alliance by diluting the authority and decision-making processes within the NATO governing structure and lead to the breakdown of the very sense of cooperation that NATO has instilled in its member states. Furthermore, it may unnecessarily aggravate regional tensions. To give a dramatic example, providing an overt NATO security guarantee to Taiwan would surely provoke Chinese aggression. In order to remain an effective and credible deterrent, NATO must ensure that the logistics necessary to implement a security guarantee are in place before full membership is granted. Moreover, full membership in the alliance should remain limited to those nations that meet a core set of standards: a clear commitment to democratic values, a stable government, and responsibilities including common military exercises. Thus, nations like Japan or Australia would qualify for immediate membership in an expanded NATO, while partly free nations such as Singapore and Indonesia would need to demonstrate stable governance and a deeper commitment to democracy over a longer period before gaining full membership.
A NATO-based security alliance would serve an important parallel purpose: it would foster a continued sense of cooperation and commitment to democratic ideals that have helped transcend ethnic rivalries and create unprecedented wealth. For emerging democracies, a NATO-based alliance would provide a stabilizing link to the West, encouraging efforts towards sustained democratic reform. Cooperation among democracies is especially important in an era of globalization. The particular vulnerability of democracies in the face of terrorism, trafficking, and economic chaos require an enduring, unified resolve to defend freedom. Though there are risks involved in implementing a global alliance through NATO, the failure to construct a security framework for democratic nations would be short-sighted and potentially destabilizing. Because NATO is built around American participation and leadership, a NATO-based security alliance would maximize America’s own security position by providing American coordination and influence over the defense arrangements of the rest of the democratic world. Through its overwhelming military superiority and history in the liberation and reconstruction of Europe, the United States has maintained the dominant role in the governance of the alliance. By taking the initiative in forging a framework for a global security alliance, the United States will provide the free world with a greater feeling of security and reinvigorate NATO’s sense of democratic mission.
