United Nations

International Studies

A Brief Review of Current Alliances and Treaties

NATO

The once-awesome power of NATO has eroded a great deal over the years, as the treaty organization has been beset by dubious success in military operations (refer to debatable effectiveness of NATO in 1999 Kosovo crisis), and factionalism among its member nations. Squabbling over which country should get which assignment and disagreements over "who's turn" has plagued the previously well-organized rotation assignments in Europe, the Middle East and in the Mediterranean, all of which has reduced NATO to little more than a figurehead organization as of late. Sweden, for example, has chosen to remain independent from NATO, opting instead for a more neutral stance like that of Switzerland and Austria. And the fact that France, the third most powerful nation in the alliance after the US and the UK, still refuses to take part in NATO's military command structure is just one more reason why NATO's voice is often not heard by tyrant leaders of outlaw countries.

While military decisions are still executed through NATO high command (SHAPE), orders must now win approval of NATO's two political factions -- the Western European Alliance (WEU), which consists of most of continental Europe, and the Atlantic Alliance (AA), consisting of the US, Canada, the UK and Norway. While the AA still carries a hefty portion of NATO's military power, its ambitions are often too broad in scope for the WEU nations, who tend to only focus on matters directly related to Central or Western Europe.

Western European Union (WEU)

Members: Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Greece, Iceland, Luxumbourg, Turkey and the Netherlands.

Germany provides the largest and most responsive force in the WEU and gets high marks for its combat-readiness, at least in terms of ground forces. Germany also seems to exhibit high morale and appears ready to commit to a hard fight. Its navy has been vastly reduced, however, with several of its top line frigates being sold recently to countries such as Indonesia. The other member nations generally only contribute a battalion or a brigade of troops at the most, and only a single frigate or destroyer for its rotating STANAVFORLANT commitment. While Denmark maintains administrative control over the island of Jan Mayan in the North Atlantic, the Danish navy is quite limited in its capabilities to defend against a major incursion that far away and would probably seek the help of the AA for protection there. Denmark's responsibility, in fact, is limited to patrolling the narrow straits of the Baltic leading into the North Sea. Most of the more powerful NATO countries such as France, Spain, Greece and Turkey will be able to provide a formidable defense but will probably not go far beyond their home waters or territory if they can help it. The remaining republics within the WEU are too small to play a significant role in NATO's defense.

Summary:

Overall, the WEU is a fairly well-trained and well-equipped portion of NATO, but without the air and sea power of the Atlantic Alliance it may lack a strong counter-offensive punch. Perhaps the greatest vulnerability of the WEU right now is its complete reliance on the AA to control the Atlantic sea lanes and ensure that a steady stream of supplies and reinforcements would continue to arrive at the European front.

Atlantic Alliance (AA)

Members: United States, U.K., Canada and Norway

This is the more powerful faction of NATO, but it has chosen to oversee much more of the world's ills -- including outbreaks of violence in the Balkans, the Middle East, Libya, Argentina and Honduras, regions where the AA's other half, the WEU, is less inclined to support. The US is of course the strongest member of this alliance but its NATO commitment has dropped off considerably over the last eight years due to deep defense cuts (see the Library of Congress summary of the domestic history of the US for details). The same is true for Canada, which only contributes a single battalion for European expeditionary missions, and a single frigate or destroyer for the STANAVFOLANT task group. However, the US would most likely reconsider a higher commitment to continental Europe in the event that a major conflict with Russia becomes imminent. The UK, whose armed forces were allowed to languish for many years, has been trying to play catch-up with several new additions to their navy and air force. Generally speaking, British Army doctrine seems to have followed the path of lighter, more agile ground forces, which will mean they can respond to global crises quickly but may not be able to bring very much force to bear. The Royal Navy navy has resurged a bit more, however, as they are now in possession of their first nuclear carrier battle group. Several problems in construction and trials, however, have kept the carrier from being fully operational, and may still not be fully ready for deployment for several months.

Summary:

While the AA is stretched over mighty distances and while there tends to be less coordination with their WEU counterpart these days, this is still the world's most powerful cohesive alliance and could bring awesome resources to bear in a conflict, given enough time for deployment. The trick will be to anticipate any upcoming attacks well enough ahead of time in order to deploy and prepare its light, rapid reaction forces and thus buy the time it needs ro assemble its major army groups , fleets and air force.

Pacific Alliance

Member nations: US, UK, Australia, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea

The Pacific Alliance is the last and most feeble attempt by the US to create a military treaty organization to help secure the peace in and around the Pacific Rim. Its aim was to allow military expansion among the US allies in an effort to shoulder some of its responsibilities to other countries. In theory, each member nation is supposed to gain the benefit of US, UK and Australian reaction forces at the cost of supplying extra forces as the first line of defense, locally. Unfortunately, the reverse happened, as Thailand, Taiwan and Japan all cleverly reduced their military spending knowing that there was solidarity from the stronger US-UK contingent. The alliance is still valid on paper and should the US or Australia be attacked in the Pacific the other nations would certainly rally to their defense -- but with far fewer forces than orginally intended when the treaty was first drafted. This has created an even greater need for US military presence as compensation, since local defenses will be less prepared in the event of an attack. All in all, a bitter lesson for the US in treaty diplomacy.

Summary:

While the Pacific Alliance treaty failed to achieve the goal of increasing treaty obligations from smaller members, as the US had hoped, it still provides a form of instant-response commitment from the US that should make any ambitious leader or commander wary.

END REPORT.