The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du Traité de

l'Atlantique Nord; OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military

alliance between several North American and European states based on the North Atlantic

Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949.

Animus in consulendo liber (Latin: "A mind unfettered in deliberation") is the official motto of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),[1] originating from The Conspiracy of Catiline (52, 21) by
Roman historian Sallust where it was translated by Charles Anthon as "a mind unfettered in
deliberation".[2] The motto was chosen by the Dean of the NATO Council André de Staercke to reflect
the spirit of consultation(ART.4) envisioned by the then-Secretary General of NATO Paul-Henri
Spaak.[1] De Staercke borrowed the quote when he recalled his visit to the Palace of the Chief
Magistrate in San Gimignano, where "animus in consulendo liber" was engraved on the Magistrate's
seat.[1] The motto is displayed on the wall of the main Council Room at NATO headquarters
in Brussels, behind the chairman's seat[1](with the New Latin letter U instead of V used in Classical
Latin).
The motto's original context by Sallust, who cites Cato the Younger's address to the Roman Senate,
is: "But there were other qualities which made them [our forefathers] great, which we do not possess
at all: efficiency at home, a just rule abroad, in counsel an independent spirit free from guilt or
passion" (Latin: "Sed alia fuere, quae illos magnos fecere, quae nobis nulla sunt: domi industria,
foris iustum imperium, animus in consulendo liber, neque delicto neque lubidini obnoxius").

French withdrawal
NATO's unity was breached early in its history with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's
presidency of France.[36] De Gaulle protested against the USA's strong role in the organization and
what he perceived as a special relationship between it and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum
sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September
1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing
with the US and the UK.[37]
Considering the response to be unsatisfactory, de Gaulle began constructing an independent
defence force for his country. He wanted to give France, in the event of an East German incursion
into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being
drawn into a larger NATO–Warsaw Pact war.[38] In February 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean
Fleet from NATO command,[39] and later banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French
soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return
control of the air force bases that it had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.
Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, de
Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing
France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command.[40] In 1966, all French armed forces were
removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to
leave France. US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was later quoted as asking de Gaulle whether his
order included "the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?" [41]This withdrawal forced the
relocation of SHAPE from Rocquencourt, near Paris, to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by
16 October 1967.[42] France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defence of
Europe from possible Warsaw Pact attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of
Germany throughout the Cold War. A series of secret accords between US and French officials,
the Lemnitzer–Ailleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's
command structure should East-West hostilities break out. [43]
France announced their return to full participation at the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit.

Kosovo intervention
In an effort to stop Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown on KLA separatists and Albanian
civilians in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1199 on 23 September
1998 to demand a ceasefire. Negotiations under US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke broke down
on 23 March 1999, and he handed the matter to NATO,[87] which started a 78-day bombing campaign
on 24 March 1999.[88] Operation Allied Force targeted the military capabilities of what was then
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the crisis, NATO also deployed one of its international
reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to Albania as the Albania Force (AFOR), to deliver
humanitarian aid to refugees from Kosovo.[89]
Though the campaign was criticized for high civilian casualties, including bombing of the Chinese
embassy in Belgrade, Milošević finally accepted the terms of an international peace plan on 3 June
1999, ending the Kosovo War. On 11 June, Milošević further accepted UN resolution 1244, under
the mandate of which NATO then helped establish the KFOR peacekeeping force. Nearly one million
refugees had fled Kosovo, and part of KFOR's mandate was to protect the humanitarian missions, in
addition to deterring violence.[89][90] In August–September 2001, the alliance also
mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of
Macedonia.[91] As of 1 December 2013, 4,882 KFOR soldiers, representing 31 countries, continue to
operate in the area.[92]
The US, the UK, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the U.N. Security
Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the action against Serbia in 1999, while France
and some others claimed that the alliance needed UN approval.[93] The US/UK side claimed that this
would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have
exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in
future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose
of the organization. Recognizing the post-Cold War military environment, NATO adopted the Alliance
Strategic Concept during its Washington summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention
and crisis management.[

NATO STRUCTURE
NATO Council
Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its 29 member states. However, the North Atlantic
Treaty and other agreements outline how decisions are to be made within NATO. Each of the 29
members sends a delegation or mission to NATO's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. [161] The senior
permanent member of each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative and is generally
a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador (and holding that diplomatic rank). Several
countries have diplomatic missions to NATO through embassies in Belgium.
Together, the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets
together at least once a week and has effective governance authority and powers of decision in
NATO. From time to time the Council also meets at higher level meetings involving foreign
ministers, defence ministers or heads of state or government (HOSG) and it is at these meetings
that major decisions regarding NATO's policies are generally taken. However, it is worth noting that
the Council has the same authority and powers of decision-making, and its decisions have the same
status and validity, at whatever level it meets. France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the
United States are together referred to as the Quint, which is an informal discussion group within
NATO. NATO summits also form a further venue for decisions on complex issues, such as
enlargement.[162]
The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when
decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord.
There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of
its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

Military structures
NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split
into two Strategic Commands commanded by a senior US officer and (currently) a senior French
officer[166] assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to
the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their
areas of command.[62]
Each country's delegation includes a Military Representative, a senior officer from each country's
armed forces, supported by the International Military Staff. Together the Military Representatives
form the Military Committee, a body responsible for recommending to NATO's political authorities
those measures considered necessary for the common defence of the NATO area. Its principal role
is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military
matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is
responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the
Council.[167] The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Petr Pavel of the Czech Republic, since
2015.
Like the Council, from time to time the Military Committee also meets at a higher level, namely at the
level of Chiefs of Defence, the most senior military officer in each nation's armed forces. Until 2008
the Military Committee excluded France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from
the NATO Military Command Structure, which it rejoined in 1995. Until France rejoined NATO, it was
not represented on the Defence Planning Committee, and this led to conflicts between it and NATO
members.[168] Such was the case in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.[169] The operational work
of the Committee is supported by the International Military Staff.
The structure of NATO evolved throughout the Cold War and its aftermath. An integrated military
structure for NATO was first established in 1950 as it became clear that NATO would need to
enhance its defences for the longer term against a potential Soviet attack. In April 1951, Allied
Command Europe and its headquarters (SHAPE) were established; later, four subordinate
headquarters were added in Northern and Central Europe, the Southern Region, and the
Mediterranean.[170]
From the 1950s to 2003, the Strategic Commanders were the Supreme Allied Commander
Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT). The current
arrangement is to separate responsibility between Allied Command Transformation (ACT),
responsible for transformation and training of NATO forces, and Allied Command Operations (ACO),
responsible for NATO operations worldwide.[171] Starting in late 2003 NATO has restructured how it
commands and deploys its troops by creating several NATO Rapid Deployable Corps,
including Eurocorps, I. German/Dutch Corps, Multinational Corps Northeast, and NATO Rapid
Deployable Italian Corps among others, as well as naval High Readiness Forces (HRFs), which all
report to Allied Command Operations.[172]
In early 2015, in the wake of the War in Donbass, meetings of NATO ministers decided that
Multinational Corps Northeast would be augmented so as to develop greater capabilities, to, if
 thought necessary, prepare to defend the Baltic States, and that a new Multinational Division
Southeast would be established in Romania. Six NATO Force Integration Units would also be
established to coordinate preparations for defence of new Eastern members of NATO. [173]
Multinational Division Southeast was activated on 1 December 2015. [174] Headquarters Multinational
Division South – East (HQ MND-SE) is a North Atlantic Council (NAC) activated NATO military body
under operational command (OPCOM) of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) which
may be employed and deployed in peacetime, crisis and operations by NATO on the authority of the
appropriate NATO Military Authorities by means of an exercise or operational tasking issued in
accordance with the Command and Control Technical Arrangement (C2 TA) and standard NATO
procedures.
During August 2016, it was announced that 650 soldiers of the British Army would be deployed on
an enduring basis in Eastern Europe, mainly in Estonia with some also being deployed to Poland.
This British deployment forms part of a four-battle group (four-battalion) deployment by various
allies, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence, one each spread from Poland (the Poland-deployed
battle group mostly led by the U.S.) to Estonia.

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

 Based on a commitment to democratic principles, the purpose of the
Partnership for Peace is to increase stability, diminish threats to peace and
build strengthened security relationships between NATO and non-member
countries in the Euro-Atlantic area.

 The PfP was established in 1994 to enable participants to develop an

individual relationship with NATO, choosing their own priorities for
cooperation, and the level and pace of progress.

 Activities on offer under the PfP programme touch on virtually every field
of NATO activity.

 Since April 2011, all PfP activities and exercises are in principle open to
all NATO partners, be they from the Euro-Atlantic region, the Mediterranean
Dialogue, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative or global partners.

 Currently, there are 21 countries in the Partnership for Peace

programme.

 A wide range of activities, tools and programmes

Activities on offer under the PfP programme touch on virtually every field of
NATO activity, including defence-related work, defence reform, defence policy
and planning, civil-military relations, education and training, military-to-military
 cooperation and exercises, civil emergency planning and disaster response,
and cooperation on science and environmental issues.

Over the years, a range of PfP tools and mechanisms have been developed
to support cooperation through a mix of policies, programmes, action plans
and arrangements. At the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, as part of a
focused reform effort to develop a more efficient and flexible partnership
policy, Allied leaders, decided to take steps to streamline NATO’s partnership
tools in order to open all cooperative activities and exercises to partners and
to harmonise partnership programmes.

The new partnerships policy approved by Allied foreign ministers in Berlin in

April 2011 opened all cooperative activities and exercises as well as some
programmes that were previously offered only to PfP partners to all partners,
whether they be Euro-Atlantic partners, countries participating in the
Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, or global
partners. (For more details, see “Partnership tools")

The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council provides the overall political framework

for NATO’s cooperation with Euro-Atlantic partners and the bilateral
relationships developed between NATO and individual partner countries within
the Partnership for Peace programme.

There are currently 21 countries in the Partnership for Peace programme.

 Framework

Partner countries choose individual activities according to their ambitions and

abilities. These are put forward to NATO in what is called a Presentation
Document.

An Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (previously called the

Individual Partnership Programme) is then jointly developed and agreed
between NATO and each partner country. These two-year programmes are
drawn up from an extensive menu of activities, according to each country’s
specific interests and needs. All partners have access to the Partnership and
Cooperation Menu, which comprises some 1,600 activities.

Some countries choose to deepen their cooperation with NATO by developing

Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs). Developed on a two-year basis,
such plans are designed to bring together all the various cooperation
mechanisms through which a partner country interacts with the Alliance,
sharpening the focus of activities to better support their domestic reform
efforts.

President Trump accused Germany over the weekend

of owing NATO and the United States vast sums of
money for defense.
That claim was promptly rejected by Germany's defense minister, as well as
former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder.
Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization spend money on their own
defense. The money they send to NATO directly accounts for less than 1% of
overall defense spending by members of the alliance.
Here's how it works.
National budgets
NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or
more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been
invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.
To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their
armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much
they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.
The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not
meeting it.
It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the
money.

Related: Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO

money
The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4
billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic
command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule
compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO
estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.
The alliance also has a civilian budget of €234.4 million ($252 million), used
mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.
Spending is rising
Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the
U.K. -- meet the 2% target.
The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this
year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.
NATO has long been pushing for higher spending. At a summit in 2014, all
members who were falling short promised to move toward the official target
within a decade.
That pledge appears to be holding: The alliance as a whole increased defense
spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.
And last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. If the
U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8%
in 2016. Including the U.S., overall spending rose by 2.9%.

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent splurge. Latvia,

which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in
2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%.
The 2% problem
So why don't more countries spend 2% of GDP? Many experts point out that
the target is problematic.
NATO has warned against a rush to spend for the sake of spending,
emphasizing that budget decisions must be based on strategic planning. For
example, it wants countries to spend 20% of their defense budgets on
equipment.
There's also pressure for more coordination of spending among European
countries.
Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to
absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit
pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.
NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends
just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO
commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as
European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as
national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight
against ISIS.

Once the Allies have decided to invite a country to become a member of

NATO, they officially invite the country to begin accession talks with the
Alliance. This is the first step in the accession process on the way to formal
membership. The major steps in the process are:

1. Accession talks with a NATO team

These talks take place at NATO Headquarters in Brussels and bring together
teams of NATO experts and representatives of the individual invitees. Their
aim is to obtain formal confirmation from the invitees of their willingness and
ability to meet the political, legal and military obligations and commitments of
NATO membership, as laid out in the Washington Treaty and in the Study on
NATO Enlargement.

The talks take place in two sessions with each invitee. In the first session,
political and defence or military issues are discussed, essentially providing the
opportunity to establish that the preconditions for membership have been met.
The second session is more technical and includes discussion of resources,
security, and legal issues as well as the contribution of each new member
country to NATO’s common budget. This is determined on a proportional
basis, according to the size of their economies in relation to those of other
Alliance member countries.

Invitees are also required to implement measures to ensure the protection of

NATO classified information, and prepare their security and intelligence
services to work with the NATO Office of Security.
The end product of these discussions is a timetable to be submitted by each
invitee for the completion of necessary reforms, which may continue even
after these countries have become NATO members.

2. Invitees send letters of intent to NATO, along with timetables for completion of
reforms

In the second step of the accession process, each invitee country provides
confirmation of its acceptance of the obligations and commitments of
membership in the form of a letter of intent from each foreign minister
addressed to the NATO Secretary General. Together with this letter they also
formally submit their individual reform timetables.

3. Accession protocols are signed by NATO countries

NATO then prepares Accession Protocols to the Washington Treaty for each
invitee. These protocols are in effect amendments or additions to the Treaty,
which once signed and ratified by Allies, become an integral part of the Treaty
itself and permit the invited countries to become parties to the Treaty.

4. Accession protocols are ratified by NATO countries

The governments of NATO member states ratify the protocols, according to

their national requirements and procedures. The ratification procedure varies
from country to country. For example, the United States requires a two-thirds
majority to pass the required legislation in the Senate. Elsewhere, for example
in the United Kingdom, no formal parliamentary vote is required.

5. The Secretary General invites the potential new members to accede to the North
Atlantic Treaty

Once all NATO member countries notify the Government of the United States
of America, the depository of the Washington Treaty, of their acceptance of the
protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the potential new
members, the Secretary General invites the new countries to accede to the
Treaty.

6. Invitees accede to the North Atlantic Treaty in accordance with their national
procedures
7. Upon depositing their instruments of accession with the US State Department,
invitees formally become NATO members

NATO in AFGHANISTAN

Some argue that accomplishments such as the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
and the denial of Afghanistan as a safe haven for his terrorist network by toppling the
Taliban regime are enough to regard the mission as a success. But others point out that
some of the initial successes of the mission are in danger of being reversed and that NATO
will simply be handing the Afghans a "stalemated" war.
"The Taliban may not be in power, yet they threaten to retake it. The insurgents already
have de facto control over key areas of Afghanistan, particularly in the south and east,"
Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, told DW. And though al Qaeda no longer has a sanctuary
in the country, it continues to enjoy shelter in neighboring Pakistan - in fact, much of the al
Qaeda presence in Afghanistan simply gravitated into Pakistan, Kugelman added.

A high price
The international community has paid a high price for its 12-year involvement in
Afghanistan. According to data collected by the Brookings Institution, more than 3,300
coalition troops have died since the invasion began in October 2001, with the US - the
largest troop contributor - bearing the brunt of the casualties (2,156). Moreover, it is
estimated that the war has cost Washington alone more than USD 660 billion thus far, of
which more than USD 56 billion have been spent on equipping and training Afghan security
forces.
Both the high human and monetary cost of the NATO-led ISAF mission have led many to
raise questions about the purpose and achievements of the military intervention,
particularly since the security situation in Afghanistan remains volatile, with civilians
increasingly bearing the brunt of the conflict. According to the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR,
the Taliban and other insurgent groups have changed the focus of their attacks from
international troops to locals and are now targeting civilian leaders in order to intimidate
and control communities in rural areas.
In the first six months of 2013, the UN registered a 23 percent increase in the number of
conflict-related civilian deaths. Moreover, casualties among Afghan police officers are
reported to have doubled since ISAF handed over security responsibility to local forces. The
fighting has also led to 590,000 internally displaced people, a 21 percent increase since
January and more than four times the number in 2006, according to UNHCR.

MONTENEGRO ACCESSION

One of the key objections to Montenegro’s Nato membership, raised by the US

senator Rand Paul among others, is that it can contribute a tiny military of
only 2,000 soldiers in exchange for Nato protection. What it does have is the
last stretch of Mediterranean coastline between Gibraltar and Syria not
controlled by the alliance, a location also coveted by Russia. Moscow asked for
but was denied permission to refuel and restock naval ships in Montenegro in
2013, but has denied seeking a permanent base there.

One of the key objections to Montenegro’s Nato membership, raised by the US

senator Rand Paul among others, is that it can contribute a tiny military of
only 2,000 soldiers in exchange for Nato protection. What it does have is the
last stretch of Mediterranean coastline between Gibraltar and Syria not
controlled by the alliance, a location also coveted by Russia. Moscow asked for
but was denied permission to refuel and restock naval ships in Montenegro in
2013, but has denied seeking a permanent base there.

But Nato membership is also a move that has been rejected by much of the
population, raising the possibility of continued political upheaval. A poll in
December found that 39.5% of the population was for and 39.7% against.
Added to 500 who died in the 1999 Nato bombing of Serbia and Montenegro
are the historical ties to Russia. Russia was the first foreign country with
which Montenegro established diplomatic ties in 1711, and is also majority
Orthodox Christian.

“I like Russia, not the Americans. Russia is our people. We have the same
culture and history,” said Zhanna Brajović, the owner of a small market in
Podgorica.

Since Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch who was close to Vladimir Putin, bought the
major state aluminum smelter KAP in 2005, Russian money has been pouring
into Montenegro, especially to beachside real estate and development deals.
Deripaska is now suing the government over the loss of KAP but remains an
investor in the Porto Montenegro yacht marina project. Russia reportedly
accounts for one-third of the foreign direct investment in Montenegro in 2015,
dwarfing that from western Europe.
The vote in favour - by 46 out of 81 MPs - paves the way for Montenegro
to join Nato late next month.

All but two of Nato's 28 members have ratified the accord.

Russia long regarded Montenegro and neighbouring Serbia as allies. It

has now banned Montenegrin wine and said it might move to defend
Russian interests.

The Russian foreign ministry said Montenegro's leadership and its

Western backers had "ignored the voice of reason and conscience".

"We reserve the right to take steps aimed at defending our interests
and national security."

Montenegro's Prime Minister, Dusko Markovic, dismissed Russia's wine

import ban as politically motivated. Russia cited sanitary concerns.

A fifth of all wine exports go to Russia, and the ban will have a
significant impact on sales.

"It is clear that the decision is in the context of Nato membership," Mr

Markovic said.