The United States Nato And A New Multilateral Relationship

Formed in the aftermath of WWII and in the face of the emerging threat posed by the Soviet Union, the transformation that has taken place in recent years within NATO has been neither natural nor easy for the multi-national organization or the United States. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist it seemed NATO would disappear too. The rationale for a large American military deployment in Europe, described by President Eisenhower as a temporary move, no longer could be supported. This work documents the transition of the United States relationship with NATO from a focus on the defense of Western Europe to an inclusive military and political organization concerned with the security of all of Europe with the real potential for employment of its military power beyond the European continent. Despite budgeting and economic concerns raised by key members of the U.S. Congress, President George H.W. Bush supported the status quo and was caught completely off guard when the Berlin Wall fell. He and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had not fully understood the changed strategic environment in Europe but the U.S. Congress did and offered many suggestions. NATO was saved. President Bill Clinton continued to promote the validity of NATO, expanded NATO eastwards, reduced the U.S. troop level in Europe to 100,000, and gave NATO a mission beyond warfare with the peacekeeping task in Bosnia. A new Atlantic relationship had been forged for the post-Cold War period.

This thesis examines the evolution of the Ukraine-NATO ties since 1991. The rise of new states in the former USSR represents a diplomatic revolution of the first order, which this study analyses in part. The Ukraine is officially committed to a policy of neutrality, and has used its non-block status mainly to distance itself from Russia. It has, at the same time, tried to develop closer political relationships with the countries of Central and Western Europe. At this moment, it is vital for the Ukraine to establish a special relationship with NATO, as well as bilateral relations with the USA. By means of this policy, the Ukraine may confirm its independence and sovereignty, to build a new state, and to integrate into the Western society. Presently the Ukraine needs to create constructive relations with Russia. Furthermore the relationships between the Ukraine, NATO, and the USA will play a very significant role in Ukraine affirming itself.

This book takes a new approach to answering the question of how NATO survived after the Cold War by examining its complex relationship with the United States. A closer look at major NATO engagements in the post-Cold War era, including in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, reveals how the US helped comprehensively reshape the alliance. In every conflict, there was tension between the United States and its allies over mission leadership, political support, legal precedents, military capabilities, and financial contributions. The author explores why allied actions resulted in both praise and criticism of NATO’s contributions from American policymakers, and why despite all of this and the growing concern over the alliance’s perceived shortcomings the United States continued to support the alliance. In addition to demonstrating the American influence on the alliance, this works demonstrates why NATO’s survival is beneficial to US interests.

A fifth edition of this book is now available. This elegantly written and comprehensive book is the only text that combines a unified set of both country case studies with sustained analysis of the European Union. The contributors, an authoritative group of Americans and Europeans, explore the new Europe—west and east—using intertwining themes of domestic politics, European integration, and European security. In this fourth edition, all existing chapters have been thoroughly revised and updated, and completely new chapters have been added on France, Italy, Poland, the global economic crisis, economic governance, law and politics, migration, and security. Cosmopolitan in outlook, realistic in analysis, this unique text will lead readers toward a coherent view of Europe today.

Foreign Policy: From Conception to Diplomatic Practice represents an original and important contribution to the study of foreign policy, uniquely framed by the experiences of small and new countries. Ambassador Ernest Petrič artfully brings together academic expertise and years of diplomatic experience to provide a thorough treatment of national and international environments, the foreign policy decision making process and an original analysis of the means of foreign policy and diplomacy.

The authors explore international reactions to U.S. conduct in world affairs.

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.