July 23: Security Organizations – NATO

READING ASSIGNMENT: NATO Enlargement Does Not Spread Democracy. Reiter, Dan. 2001. Why

International Security

25:41-67.

글로벌 KU 프론티어 스피릿 !!!

• • • • •

Questions from last time:

• • • In reading, I have some problems in specifying the main points. In Hathaway's reading, first, the author mention the hard-law commitments and soft-law characteristics.(p.592) This means that human rights treaties give hard commitments to signed countries by their "international" announcement, but actually the treaties not forcing those countries because the IOs has weak leagal sanctions ?

Is this right ..?

• • • and in "Domestic Legal Enforcement" reading part, the author said, treaties that are more effective are also more costly. And next, the author explains this logic, but I can't understand its exact meaning, especially about the legislature and judiciary explanations.

I think it is (or may be..?) connected with today's lecture, the story about the 'de facto compliant' and the problem of sacrificing sovereignty.. but I couldn't understand it well.

Also, I want to clarify today's lecture about the dictatorship.

In dictatorship, audiences (its own citizens or other countries also) do not know exactly how strong the dictator is.

So the dictator announce his resolve by signing the human rights treaty, and then he can make others know about his strong resolve clearly.

am i right? (English is superb! – wondering about the mid-term – incentives)

More questions

 • Can you explain the reason why strong resolve leaders are likely to sign the human right treaties as a signaling of resolve? In my opinion, it is likely that dictators will violate the human right regimes, and if they sign the treaty, they will receive punishment from the international society, (CAT). Am I right? Why do strong dictators even bother to sign the treaty? Also I don't quite understand how signing human right treaty can be a credible signal which indicates leader's strong will.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

• THE Cold War alliance of the West • Established 1949 – just a political organization • Then a war galvanized the member states • Which war?

– KOREAN WAR 1950-1953 • The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay (UK), famously stated the organization's goal was: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Important aside:

• What was the rival alliance of the “East”?

• The Warsaw Pact • Dissolved with the end of the Cold War

With the end of the Cold War, what good is NATO & why enlarge it?

Spread democracy?

Why not enlarge NATO?

1. Credibility problem 2. Alienating Russia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n cjjY7CTklM&feature=related

• http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.ht

m (home page)

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

• HQ located where?

– Brussels, Belgium • April 4,1949: 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty – Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal (dictatorship until 1975!) , the United Kingdom, and the United States • 1.

3 components of the treaty relevant to enlargement and democratization are notable Article 5 is the most binding aspect of the treaty: “an armed attack against one or more of [the parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” 2. The treaty in two places (Articles 2 and 10) states its

commitment to democratic principles

3. Article 10 allows for the inclusion of new members by unanimous vote – Four nations joined as new members during the Cold War: – 1952: Greece (Dict 1967-73) & – 1982: Spain (Dem 1977-) Turkey (Authoritarian until 1960, with military interventions in 1971 & 1980. 1980-1982 military rule!!!) – 1955: West Germany in 1955 (Dem)

• 1994 Secretary of State Warren Christopher pushes for NATO enlargement • Christopher come from the “institutionalist” school of thought – believes international institutions promote democracy, trade, peace •

March 1999

:

Czech Republic

,

Hungary

,

Poland

• •

(Bush... Neo-con?...) March 2004

:

Bulgaria

,

Estonia

,

Latvia

,

Lithuania

,

Romania

,

Slovakia

,

Slovenia

•

April 2009

:

Albania

,

Croatia

• Wiki time line!: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Map_of_NATO_chronological.gif

How might NATO spread democracy?

•

Carrot

– Since 1995, NATO only admits democracies – Thus governments that want to join NATO have an incentive to bring about democracy – Problem?

– This is a new rule. Historically there have been non-democratic members

How might NATO spread democracy?

•

Stick

– Ejection – NATO *might* eject countries if democracy breaks down – Thus member governments have an incentive to continue to play by democratic rules – Problem?

– There is no legal basis for this!

– At best this might be possible through a unanimous vote, but there are so many members, unanimity on ejection is unlikely – Organization of American States and European Union do have explicit ejection procedures

How might NATO spread democracy?

• Socialization effect: – Teach military leaders the importance of civilian supremacy over the military – NATO provides an institutionalized environment with transgovernmental contacts between militaries which can spread norms of civilian control of the military – Problem?

– The major determinant of the survival of democracy is per capita income (Przeworski) –

However – we will discuss the work of Pevehouse July 30

Risks for NATO from enlargement

1. Credibility problem 2. Alienating Russia

Risks for NATO: Credibility problem

• “an armed attack against one…shall be considered an attack against them all.” •

Poland

: 31% of the American public agrees that the US has a vital interest in Poland •

Japan

: 87% of the American public agrees that the US has a vital interest in Poland •

Korea

?

– Emailing scholars… http://www.google.com/ • If we are unwilling to come to the defense of NATO members, the organization is weakened

Risks for NATO: Alienating Russia

• Russian point of view: – With the end of the Cold War came the end of the Warsaw Pact – Why is there still a NATO?

– And why is it

growing

?

–

And why is it growing right up to our borders???

The Risk: Waking the Sleeping Bear

The 2008 South Ossetia War a.k.a. the Russia –Georgia War

• Georgia enter NATO?

• Putin warns Bush • • Georgia continues quest to join NATO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuhlteq 0VM&feature=related

Take homes

• The continued usefulness of NATO depends on it being credible (defending ALL members) • The point is to bring about peace not alienate rivals (Russia) • Enlargement may promote peace by promoting democracy • But it is not obvious that NATO membership can indeed promote democracy

글로벌

KU

프론티어 스피릿

!!!