Addendum "Africa and NATO"

NATO is portrayed by its member states and official sources as a defence and values-based alliance designed to secure peace through collective security. Critics, however, view it primarily as a military alliance engaged in offensive operations. NATO was founded in 1949 with the North Atlantic Treaty (Washington Treaty). In the treaty, the members commit to the principles of the UN Charter, to democracy, freedom and the rule of law. They undertake to resolve international disputes peacefully and to use force only in accordance with the UN Charter. NATO is not a traditional ‘peace alliance’ but a military defence alliance. Its main objective is the collective security of its member states: an attack on one is regarded as an attack on all (Article 5). Article 5 has been invoked only once to date: following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the USA (at that time, NATO supported the USA in Afghanistan, amongst other places). It sees itself as a guarantor of stability and deterrence, not as a purely peace-keeping organisation. NATO’s official self-description is that, in the North Atlantic Treaty, it is committed to peace, democracy and freedom, and sees itself as a community of values comprising free states. Article 5 guarantees collective defence in the event of attacks, which has served as a guarantor of stability in Europe and North America since its foundation in 1949. Deterrence is intended to prevent war (‘peace through strength’). In addition to defence, its remit encompasses crisis management and cooperation, for example in Afghanistan or Kosovo for the purpose of stabilisation. Officially, it aims at conflict prevention and global security partnerships. Opponents argue that NATO is not a purely peaceful alliance, but an expansionist military organisation carrying out interventions outside the alliance’s territory without a UN mandate. Examples such as Libya or the situation in Ukraine are cited as evidence of offensive tendencies It can therefore be said that NATO is not a purely ‘peace alliance’ in the sense of a pacifist or purely diplomatic organisation such as the United Nations. It is a military defence alliance (defensive alliance) that sees itself as such and whose core task is the collective defence of its member states. Arguments in favour of NATO include the claim that NATO safeguards peace. - Deterrence during the Cold War: For over 40 years, NATO prevented Soviet expansion into Western Europe. Many historians and politicians see this as one of the main reasons for the long period of peace in Western Europe after 1945. - No attacks on member states: Since NATO’s inception, no member state has been directly attacked (apart from the terrorist attacks in 2001). Deterrence has worked. - Stability through enlargement: Many Eastern European states (e.g. Poland, the Baltic states) view NATO membership as a guarantee against Russian influence and as a stabilising force for democracy and the economy. Polls show broad support in Germany and the US for the organisation’s peacekeeping role through deterrence. - Current role: In relation to Russia (since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022), NATO once again serves primarily to defend Europe’s territory. Arguments against NATO – why it is not purely a ‘peace alliance’ - Military interventions ‘out of area’ (outside its own territory): - Kosovo 1999: Air campaign against Yugoslavia without an explicit UN mandate, to prevent ethnic cleansing. Successful in preventing a massacre, but controversial (questionable under international law, led to a long-term presence). - Libya 2011: UN-mandated intervention to protect civilians – ended with the overthrow of Gaddafi and years of chaos in the country. Critics see this as an overreach of the mandate. - Afghanistan 2001–2021: Initially legitimate following 9/11 (Article 5), later a long-standing occupation and reconstruction mission of dubious success. The withdrawal in 2021 was chaotic. - Eastward enlargement: From a Western perspective, the voluntary accession of sovereign states and the export of stability. From a Russian (and, to some extent, left-wing/critical) perspective, a provocation and a breach of alleged commitments made in 1990. This has placed a massive strain on relations with Russia and is exploited by Putin as a threat (although there was no formal ban on enlargement). - Criticism from the left/pacifist camp: NATO is a power bloc of the US and the West that wages wars, drives up arms spending and fuels conflicts, rather than focusing on the collective security of all states (including Russia). NATO is primarily a defence alliance that seeks to secure peace through deterrence – and has done so largely successfully in Europe for decades. It is not a ‘peace organisation’ like Amnesty International or the UN, which resolves conflicts solely through diplomatic means. Military alliances are, by definition, prepared for the possible use of force. Whether it contributes more to peace overall or jeopardises it depends heavily on the political perspective: - Western/majority view (in NATO countries): Indispensable for security and stability, particularly in the face of Russia. - Critical view (e.g. from Russia, parts of the left or the Global South): An aggressive instrument of Western hegemony. Here is a list of the most significant military conflicts and operations involving NATO, sorted by region: Balkan Wars (1990s) · Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–2004): Peacekeeping and enforcement of no-fly zones. The first combat missions in history were Operation Deliberate Force (1995). · Kosovo (1999–present): Air strikes (Operation Allied Force) against Serbia in 1999 to halt humanitarian suffering. This was followed by the KFOR peacekeeping mission, which continues to this day. · Afghanistan (2001–2021): The longest and largest mission to date. It was triggered by the only Article 5 case in history following 9/11. · Iraq (2004–2011, from 2018): Initially a training initiative, later a renewed, non-combat advisory mission. · Mediterranean & Horn of Africa: Patrols to combat terrorism and piracy (Operation Active Endeavour, Ocean Shield). · Libya (2011): Deployment under a UN mandate to protect civilians, which led to the overthrow of Gaddafi (Operation Unified Protector). · Turkey (2012–present): Deployment of Patriot missiles on the border with Syria (Operation Active Fence). · Eastern flank & Baltic Sea: Since 2014, reinforcement of airspace surveillance (Air Policing) and naval presence to deter Russia (Baltic Sentry) . What is not mentioned here is the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is closely linked to NATO’s eastward expansion, which Moscow has regarded as a key security issue since the 1990s. Following the end of the Cold War, a number of former Warsaw Pact states and other Eastern European countries joined NATO, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria and, later, North Macedonia. This series of accessions is referred to as ‘eastern enlargement’ and has gradually brought NATO’s borders closer to Russia. Russia regards the eastward expansion as a breach of supposed agreements from the 1990s, according to which NATO was not to expand eastwards. In particular, the prospect of Ukraine’s future NATO accession is described by Putin as a “direct threat to Russia’s security” and cited as a legitimate reason for military action. In the run-up to the 2022 war, Russia demanded, among other things, an end to eastward expansion and a return by NATO to its military positions of 1997, i.e. excluding the eastern states that joined later. While Western analyses view eastward expansion as an important political justification for Moscow, they also emphasise that the actual origins of the war lie deeper in geopolitical power competition, Russian sphere-of-influence policy and the Ukraine issue. Since the outbreak of war in 2022, NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe and the defence of the ‘eastern flank’ have been significantly strengthened, which Russia in turn interprets as a further escalation of eastward expansion. At the same time, the question of the extent to which a limited or halted eastward expansion can be used as diplomatic leeway for détente remains a central point of contention in security discussions between Russia and the West.