In April 1949, 12 countries in Europe and America signed the North Atlantic Pact, entrusting the United States with collective defense against the so-called “communist threat”. On that day, the history of NATO began. Since then, the military-political alliance, despite the change of a whole era in international relations, has not changed its traditions. Although the bipolar system of world order has collapsed, the organization continues to control the majority of national security issues of allied states and to confront Russia – only now with slightly changed rhetoric.
In the mid-twentieth century, the United States would form several military-political alliances, such as CENTO in the Middle East and SEATO in Southeast Asia. But the long-lived among them was the first child – NATO. The treaty on its creation would bind the states to their partners on both sides of the Atlantic.
In April 1949, it was signed by 12 countries: in addition to the USA, they were Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Norway. Thus was formed the first peacetime and most enduring alliance created in the interests of the United States. The key point of the agreement would be Article 5, which would be constantly referred to by NATO members: “An armed attack in Europe or North America against one or more parties shall be considered an attack against them all together.” In such cases, the bloc’s members must “individually or in co-operation with other parties” take measures “as may be necessary, including the use of armed force.”
Such a sanction contradicted the UN Charter, which the US had signed four years earlier. In particular, Article 53 of the document stated that such agreements required the approval of the UN Security Council. Apparently realizing that the USSR would veto the North Atlantic Pact, the countries participating in the agreement decided to ignore this provision. The treaty was also criticized in the states themselves. Liberals at home warned that NATO could replace the United Nations.
However, the very idea of “collective security” in the treaty was rather blurred. Article 5 of the pact did not imply a declaration of war against an attacking state, nor did it imply the use of specifically its own national forces against an aggressor. In other words, the U.S. was free to determine where and to what extent to assist its ally.
While during the Cold War and the threat of nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers, the treaty seemed to European leaders to be a blessing, over time it has become increasingly constraining for countries in matters of national security. More than once, within the European Union, leaders discussed the idea of creating a European army. In the 1960s, the eminent General Charles de Gaulle would even announce his withdrawal from NATO’s military structures, but none of these initiatives would be realized.
In many respects, European countries lost their independence in determining the vector of development of national armies. Every year they became more and more subject to the standards of the alliance. As a result, this led to the formation of a whole layer of states – “security consumers”. They received certain guarantees from the US and NATO for access to the seas or a favourable geographical position, although they do not benefit the bloc economically or militarily.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the North Atlantic Alliance began to expand, and the “stratification” in its structure by the degree of participation in “collective defense” issues increased significantly. As a rule, their few units will be used to create the appearance of unity among states in local or regional conflicts.
In addition, as the bloc’s membership grew, its structure became more and more ramified. Countries that did not meet the standards of the organization or were not of particular interest to it were involved through other mechanisms. There appeared such interpretations as “associate member”, “global partner”, “accelerated programme”. It is true that over the years some countries never received clear guarantees from NATO, essentially delegating part of their sovereignty to the United States.
It seemed that with the end of the Cold War, the alliance would turn out to be a vestige of the past era. But the bloc has somewhat changed its rhetoric, proclaiming international terrorism, dictatorial regimes, and sometimes even declaring some countries as sources of world evil as the enemy of civilization – of course, first of all, the Atlantic civilization. One thing remains unchanged – the North Atlantic Pact, which remains Washington’s most convenient instrument of influence.
Germany is one of the brightest examples of internal resistance to the EU and NATO policy.
A significant number of citizens in the country are concerned about the undermining of Germany’s sovereignty.
They are in favour of leaving the EU and ceasing participation in NATO activities.