NATO`S Failure AND SUCCESSES

Submitted to:
Sir

Hafiz Akbar Saeed

M.

Faisal Sarwar

BBA

V-A evening

Submitted by:

Class:

National University of Modern Languages

MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

Contents

History
Introduction
Purpose of NATO
Alliance
Aims
Structure of NATO
Role of NATO
NATO Activities
Successes and failure

History of NATO:
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is an international
organization which brings together the armies of various countries, including Britain and the
United States. It was formed in 1949, after the end of the Second World War.
The aftermath of World War 2 saw much of Europe destroy in a way that is now difficult to
imagine. Approximately 36.5 million Europeans had died in the conflict, 19 million of them
civilians. Refugee camps and rationing dominated daily life. In some area infant mortality rates
were one in four. Million of orphans wandered the burnt out shells of former in big cities. In the
German city of Hamburg alone half a million people were homeless.

Introduction
NATOs essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its
members by political and military means. Collective defense is at the heart of the Alliance and
creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members. NATO promotes democratic
values and encourages consolation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust
and in the long run prevent conflict.
And headquarter is in Brussels Belgium. NATO expenses are 867 billion USD.

If diplomatic efforts fail then military capacity undertake the crises management operation.
These are carried out under article five of the Washington Treaty. In this article adopted a
principle of collective security whereby an attack on one or more member states would be
considered an attack on them all and could be met with armed forces.
NATO members of countries are 28
BELGIUM (1949)
CANADA (1949)
DENMARK (1949)
FRANCE (1949)
ICELAND (1949)
ITALY (1949)
LUXEMBOURG (1949)
NETHERLAND (1949)
NORWAY (1949)
PORTUGAL (1949)
THE UNITED KINGDOM (1949)

GERMANY (1955)
SPAIN (1982)
CZECH REPUBLIC (1999)
HUNGARY (1999)
POLAND (1999)
BULGARIA (2004)
ESTONIA (2004)
LATVIA (2004)
ROMANIA (2004)
SLOVAKIA (2004)
SLOVENIA (2004)

THE UNITED STATES (1949)

GREECE (1952)
TURKEY 1952)

ALBANIA (2009)
CROATIA (2009)
LITHUANIA (2004)

Purpose of NATO
NATO's purpose is to protect the freedom of its members. In recent years, NATO's purpose has
expanded to include defense against weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber attacks.
Since its inception following World War II, NATO has continually redefined its focus as a
military and political alliance to keep up with the changing face of war.
NATO protects the security of its members. However, it must also take into consideration
aggression against non-members that threaten the stability of the region. That's why
its September 2014 summit focused on President Putin's goal to create a "Little Russia" out of
Ukraine's eastern region. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, other former USSR
countries are, and they're worried. President Obama vowed to defend countries such as Latvia,
Lithuania, and Estonia. The U.S. contributes three-quarters of NATO's budget.
NATO expanded its role after the 9/11 attacks to include the war on terrorism. NATO led the
mission in Afghanistan from August 2003 to December 2014. At its peak, it deployed 130,000
troops from NATO-member countries and a dozen non-members. In 2015, NATO began a noncombat support mission to Afghan troops.
NATO itself admits that "Peacekeeping has become at least as difficult as peacemaking." As a
result, NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization,
transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort that extends beyond military might alone

Alliance:
NATO is involved with three alliances that expand its influence beyond its 28 member countries.
1. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council - Created in 1991, it includes 23 countries that
support NATO's purpose. Participation in the Partnership allows partners a vehicle to
become NATO members.
2. The Mediterranean Dialogue - Begun in 1994, its goal is to bring a stabilizing influence
to the Middle East region. Members of the dialogue include Algeria, Egypt, Israel,
Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia.

3. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative - Launched in 2004, it includes these four

members of the Gulf Cooperation Council Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates. Its goal is to foster peace throughout the larger Middle East region

Structure of NATO:
NATO has a permanent staff headed by a Secretary General. He acts as the spokesperson for
NATO and chairs its committees such as the North Atlantic Council (NAC) and Nuclear
Planning Group. The NAC meets regularly and is the main decision-making body within NATO.
Since the main purpose of NATO is the defense of its members, many of the decisions are left to
senior military officers. However, when really important decisions are being made, heads of
government such as the US President and the UK Prime Minister will attend a meeting of the
NATO Council

Role of NATO:
Now that the Cold War is over and Russia is looking to the west for economic help some argue
that NATO is not needed. Others argue that the world is as unstable as ever and that NATO is
essential but that its role has to adapt. Already NATO has fewer tanks and troops than it did
during the Cold War as it is most unlikely to have to fight a big tank battle in central Europe.
NATO forces now concentrate on mobility, using helicopters to get highly trained forces to
trouble spots fast. The NATO Response Force (NRF) is made up a 13000 strong force that has
the capability to react quickly and be deployed to trouble spots anywhere in the world in times of
crisis.

NATO ACTIVITIES:
NATO provides a unique opportunity for member countries to consult and take decisions on
security issues at all levels and in a variety of fields.

A NATO decision is the expression of the collective will of all 28 member countries since all
decisions are taken by consensus.

Each day, hundreds of civilian and military experts and officials come to NATO HQs to
exchange information, share ideas and help prepare decisions when needed, in cooperation with
national delegations and the staff at NATO HQs.

NATO has been engaged in continuous transformation for many years to ensure it has the
policies, capabilities and structures required to deal with current and future threats, including the
collective defense of its members.

Success of NATO:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is without a doubt the most successful defense grouping
in history. NATO has succeeded in its main mission, the one it was founded for. It won the Cold
War, which was caused by the launching of iron curtains across the European continent. The
result and confirmation of this success is precisely the membership of former communist
countries in the Alliance.
NATO's success in the Cold War was so clear-cut that some called for its cancellation, because it
had fulfilled its purpose. But in the defense of liberty, the Alliance is not and cannot be a tool for
one use. There was no end of history, either, and it is not ending, liberal democracy is not a
definitive victor in history, and the world is no safer than at the time of the two rival blocs.
Maybe it's on the contrary. In some ways, NATO today is back at the beginning. Its basic mission
the defense of liberty remains. Liberty is the alpha and omega of NATO's existence, the
reason for its birth and its guarantee of survival. But tools and methods leading to this goal are
far less certain than they were 60 years
NATO also stopped expansion of communism.
WARSAW Pact also ended in 1991.
Article 5 invoked only once the event of 9/11.
NATO has been highly successful for many nation members (particularly European) who aren't
as military centric as the United States, because they enjoy an umbrella of protection that their
Western superpower co-member provides.
I'd also say that it benefits the United States in a different way, by allowing the U.S. to project a
global presence close to the borders of non members (particularly Russia), but in that regard, and
with the example of Crimea, it may have proven to be more trouble than it's worth.
NATO Success in KOSOVO:
EUROPE'S INSTITUTIONAL PACIFIER
NATO's Kosovo operation was a major challenge in the history of the Atlantic alliance. For the
first time, a defensive alliance launched a military campaign to avoid a humanitarian tragedy
outside its own borders. For the first time, an alliance of sovereign nations fought not to conquer

or preserve territory but to protect the values on which the alliance was founded. And despite
many challenges, NATO prevailed.
Throughout the 1990s NATO has been instrumental in managing Europe's security evolution -- a
testament both to the vitality of the transatlantic link and to its ability to adapt to changing
circumstances. Yet if there was any flaw in this emerging cooperative-security framework, it was
the fact that parts of the Balkans remained outside NATO's borders. Having never been fully
resolved over the course of this century, the Balkan question returned with a vengeance when the
violent collapse of the former Yugoslavia led to a series of wars.
These wars constituted the greatest challenge for European security since World War II. Apart
from causing countless humanitarian tragedies, they constantly threatened to escalate beyond
their point of origin and destabilize wider regions. The origins of these wars were manifold.
Although no one denies the existence of economic crises and ethnic and religious fault lines,
Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic deliberately manipulated these differences into violent and
explosive nationalism.
NATO Success in Afghanistan:

From August 2003 to December 2014, NATO led the UN-mandated International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which conducted security operations and helped build up the
Afghan security forces.

ISAF is NATOs longest and most challenging mission to date: at its height, the force was
more than 130,000 strong with troops from 51 NATO and partner nations.

The transition to Afghan lead for security started in 2011 and was completed in
December 2014, when the ISAF operation ended and the Afghans assumed full responsibility
for security.

In January 2015, NATO launched a new non-combat Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to
train, advise and assist Afghan security forces and institutions.

In May 2016, NATO foreign ministers agreed that RSMs presence will be sustained
beyond 2016 a final decision in that regard was taken by Allied leaders at the NATO Summit
in Warsaw in July.

Within and alongside RSM, NATO and Afghanistan will enhance their Enduring
Partnership of political dialogue and practical cooperation. Following the end of RSM, NATO
is expected to maintain a civilian-led presence in Afghanistan to continue to help Afghan
security institutions to become self-sufficient.

NATO and its partners are already committed to providing financial support to sustain the
Afghan forces until the end of 2017 and are currently working to ensure support until the end of
2020.

Practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest and political consultations are being
strengthened through an enhanced partnership between NATO and Afghanistan, building on the
Declaration on an Enduring Partnership signed at the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon.

NATOs Senior Civilian Representative represents the political leadership of the Alliance
in Kabul, liaising with the government, civil society, representatives of the international
community and neighboring countries.

Failure of NATO in KOSOVO:

The ethnic cleansing by the Serbs was precipitated by the NATO decision to bomb. It was a crime
against humanity for which a part of the blame has to be allocated to NATO
2. The bombing destroyed much of the civilian infrastructure of Serbia, caused widespread
pollution (including a 15 kilometer oil slick on the Danube, the source of drinking water for 10
million people), killed 2000 Serbs and injured 6000 more. Many road and rail bridges were
destroyed. The River Danube, a main artery for industrial traffic for a number of nations was
blocked. The bombing destroyed numerous factories and industrial installations including the only
oil refinery, all oil storage depots, the only car factory, pharmaceutical factories, rubber factories
and power stations. Schools, hospitals, religious sites and the market place in Nis were all bombed.
(Second disastrous failure of the war) All this was supposed to be part of humanitarian action, and
it went against the claim of the UK Prime Minister who told us that "our quarrel is not with the
ordinary people of Serbia." Targeting civilian resources contravenes the Geneva Convention and
surely constitutes a crime against humanity.
3. Whilst it is good to be able to record the safe return of the Kosovo Albanians the action of a
great many of them in bombing and burning homes, threatening, abducting and murdering Serbs
and cleansing approximately 250,000 Serbs, Roma and moderate Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo
is the third disastrous failure of the war. It constitutes a crime against humanity comparable with
the Serb action in March and April. Why was it not given equivalent media coverage in Britain?
4. NATO troops were on the ground in Kosovo providing one soldier to every thirty citizens of
Kosovo when this cleansing went on. Why were they totally ineffective in preventing this outrage?
(Another failure) If bombing was such a good idea against Serbs why was it not a good idea for
Kosovo Albanians? (I am not advocating this, but trying to point up the absurdity of the bombing
response.)
Failure of NATO in Afghanistan:

Afghanistan continues to be a problem for NATO.

On August 6,2012 Taliban fighter shot down a US Chinook helicopter which causes the
death for 20 US soldiers.

Feb 2012 US troops burnt copies of Quran, causing wide spread offence, and a wave of
protest.

On the security front, the entire NATO exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of
suffering, a lot of loss of life, and no gains because the country is not secure." These are the
words of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, criticizing NATO in a BBC interview published on
October 7 for failing to bring stability to Afghanistan in over a decade after the US-led invasion
of his country.
These claims, however, were sharply rejected by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen who said in a press conference that the war-torn country has come a long way in the
past decade: "The changes have been remarkable, and our investment in lives and resources has
been unprecedented. Nobody can deny that. And these efforts should be respected."