Us Foreign Policy Towards Nato

.. State Dean Acheson was on Joseph Stalins payroll.13 So you can see that during this time period there was much turmoil between the parties and nothing much could get done in reference to NATO. The height of this period was the debate over the Bricker amendment, which was an amendment to the constitution in which Congress would gain the responsibility and authority to approve all international agreements that failed to pass by one vote. Had this amendment passed the United States might have dropped out of NATO shortly afterwards. When this amendment failed this period ended.

This is the period when we really see America have an contributory policy towards NATO. Anything NATO needed that we could give it, we gave it. We first see our famous General Eisenhower in mid 1950 agree to cooperate in working out the problems of NATOs military problems. Next, the US sign a pact with New Zealand and Australia due to our policy towards NATO. Then, on January 30, 1952, we have another American military leader appointed as a military leader for NATO. Admiral Lynde D.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

McCormick became the first Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic. This is the second time we see America contributing one of its military leaders to the NATO military. We then see an American policy of expansion for NATO when it helps vote to accede Greece and Turkey. Next the US supports one of the NATO military commands by stationing the Headquarters for the Allied Command Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia. To close this period out we see General Eisenhower elected to be President and by this occurrence we can almost be assured, as we will, that US interests will lie heavily on NATO because of the fact that Eisenhower served as a military leader for one of NATOs military commands. Not only did General Eisenhower serve as a leader but he was the first leader of a NATO military command.

The next and third foreign policy attitude was called the Congressional Acquiescence period and lasted from 1955 to 1965. In this period you see the two parties put their differences aside and together they supported the president in foreign policy. There was only one thorn in the side of making foreign policy and that was McCarthy. McCarthy spent everyday accusing Acheson and Truman of treason and allowing communist infiltration into America. Not a day went by without McCarthy asking for the resignation of Acheson and the impeachment of Truman. Amidst all of this chaos we see America go full fledged to support NATO more than it has ever.

We also see that because of the United States role in NATO it joins in many more treaties, pacts, and alliances than it has ever before. To start things out President Eisenhower claims publicly that he will keep troops in Europe for as long as they are needed there. Then we see more of an expansion policy when, again, America helps vote to accede Germany. On August 2, 1952 we see the Canadian and US NATO air defense integrate and station headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Next, the US takes a bold step with the UK in publicly claiming or proposing the interdependence of all countries in the free world which was a direct challenge to the USSR.

More contributory policy then occurs when President Kennedy gives some of his strategic nuclear forces to NATO. Next, as a show of our military muscle, the US performs operation Big Lift which was an operation in which 14,500 troops were flown to Germany to shoe the NATO member nations that we were willing, ready and able to get troops to Europe for defense in emergency situations. So, as I said before, in this period it seems as if the US wants to show off or just make sure that the other NATO member nations know that we are 100% on board with them and that our policy towards NATO was one of contribution by all means. the fourth and final of the main policy periods early on lasted from 1965 to 1969 and was called the period of ambiguity. This was a period in which Congressmen were a bit uneasy about a warlike foreign policy.

Once again, though, through all of this turmoil Congress still supported the President. This period was classified by its name because More and more members of Congress felt that they should be consulted by the President on crucial questions of war and peace.14 In this period you see the United States policy towards NATO taking a back seat to the Policy towards the Vietnam war. In this time of limited policy towards NATO you see America meeting with the rest of the NATO member nations to discuss the creation of a nuclear planning group which was created and had there first meeting in Washington, DC The only other event was the twentieth anniversary of NATO celebration in 1969 in Washington, DC For the remaining thirty years from 1969 to 1999 you see Americas policy towards NATO being consistent with the policy of the past. The main policy was contribution with no real big seminal events occurring because the crumbling of the USSR was occurring. You still see an expansionist policy as well as more countries are acceded to NATO.

So to sum it all up for the last thirty years Americas policy towards NATO has been one of contribution, expansion, and military aid. There have been a few recent events which have occurred with respect to the United States policy towards NATO. We can see that very recently the United States has kept pretty much the same attitude of foreign policy towards NATO that is has ad consistently in the past. First we see that the US has supported NATO militarily with its involvement in the war in Kosovo. We can also see that the US has kept the policy of slow enlargement by the recent addition of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to NATO.

So from this evidence in the recent events that the US has, still, kept a policy of slow enlargement and military aid towards NATO. Now that we have the history of US policy towards NATO out of the way I will give you three policy recommendations I believe are what America should aim for and after I list those three and why I will give you the one I think is most feasible and justify why I think that should be the way to go. The three policy recommendations that I have come up with are; the status quo, that is to say slow enlargement and much military aid, rapid enlargement with a conversion of NATO into a more economic alliance now that the Cold War is over, and then maybe the US should consider trying to make NATO an alliance of just the super powers and these superpowers should try to prevent outbreaks of war and play international policemen. The first recommendation that I suggest is stay with the status quo. We see that the US has kept a fairly constant policy towards NATO and that policy has been military aid and slow enlargement. One of the biggest advocates for this policy is the President, Mr.

Clinton himself, believes that the US should fight for the slow enlargement of NATO to build a new entity that might promote world peace. There is also the old saying that if something isnt broke, then dont try to fix it. A lot of people have this view on the way the US should look at NATO, it is in our nature if you think about it. We have always tried to leave things alone and not try to tinker with them so as to keep it going in the same direction. On the surface, an idea like this seems genuine and true. One must look, though, at the eventual causes of enlargement.

You might say, for example, that if we try to enlarge NATO what will it become? This idea goes all the way back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These three great thinkers all agreed that the more in a community, entity for our understanding, the less power it has and the more chaos it will create. If so many countries become members of NATO it will be pretty hard to agree on anything. You would also have a divided gap. Most of the time you would see the big members want one thing and the smaller member nations want another thing.

Also, one must look at the past to learn how this idea probably wouldnt work. After World War II France and the US joined a pact called the Kellogg-Brand Pact of 1928. This was a pact meant to outlaw war by making it illegal. This pact was joined by a numerous amount of other countries and turned into a big joke. There was no way to see that this pact would ever be carried out.

How can one honestly say that if they join an alliance there will never be a war. If NATO keeps its original mission and enlargement occurs on a very large scale, like most want it to, it to will turn into one big joke. The next recommendations I have is one that Im sure would cause much debate all over the world but it is a possibility. If NATO were to keep the mission it originally started out with why not only let Big powerful countries join to make sure that war is prevented as much as possible. A lot of times the only thing that letting smaller countries into the alliance will do is slow the process and sometimes cause the objective to go off course.

If you think about it, the superpowers of the world are the ones that rule this world. If there could be an alliance of just the superpowers they could act as a supercop for the world in which the other nations would follow and let lead. In this super policing force every member could contribute the same large amount so that there would be no fighting over who should get to rule and make decisions and there would be no fighting about who should contribute what because they would all contribute the same. Even now, you can see that most of what NATO does is in the interests of the member nations who contribute the most. The only way possible for NATO to continue with the original mission plan it had would be to cut back on its membership. The last policy I recommend is the one I think we should follow.

I think that the US should try to enlarge NATO as much as possible but change the mission to economic stability. With economic stability there would be very few reasons for war. If everybody came together and put together an economic aid type program the only direction this world would go is up. Im sure some can only imagine what a stable world economy would do for everyone involved. By creating this, the US would gain many allies. What better way to promote peace but to offer an economic council to help third world countries and all of the eastern European states, especially, to recover from the communist struggle that they just recently got out of.

The whole reason NATO was created and the US joined it was to promote peace by preventing war and by shifting its mission to this I think that this can be achieved in a different kind of way. If this doesnt occur the US is in danger of losing a great alliance because NATO would be at risk to just disintegrate because it cant adjust to the fact that the Cold War is over and they dont know what to do now. Why dont we help make something that was just created for a specific idea and turn NATO into a truly peaceful alliance. This is, sadly, one of the only hopes to keep a dream of world peace alive. As you can see I just gave you a brief history of NATO and the United States policy towards it for the last half of the century.

I also gave three policy recommendations and told you which one I would like to see implemented for the better of the US and the world. This has been a long journey and it is far from over but hopefully we can all look to another way to promote a peaceful world. I hope the information I gave here has been interesting and something you might look at differently now. Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY NATO Information Service. 1989.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Facts and Figures. Brussels: NATO Kaplan, Lawrence S, ed. 1968. NATO And The Policy Of Containment. Boston: Raytheon Education Company. Richard D.

Lawrence, and Jeffrey Record, eds. 1974. U.S. Force Structure in NATO. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution.

Faringdon, Hugh. 1989. Strategic Geography: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Superpowers. London and New York: Routledge. Knorr, Klaus. 1959.

NATO And American Security. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. NATO Information Service. 1983. NATO Handbook. Brussels: NATO Coffey, Joseph I. 1997. The Future Role Of NATO.

New York: Foreign Policy Association. NATO Information Service. 1984. NATO And The Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons. Brussels: NATO Bolles, Blair, and Francis O.

Wilcox. Bagby, Wesley M. 1999. Americas International Relations Since World War I. New York: Oxford University Press Rosati, Jerel A.

1999. The Politics Of United States Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers Political Issues.


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out