The Debate on NATO Expansion

Abstract

This essay addresses the general rationale for creating and enlarging alliances. It presents a definition of alliance; explores the reasons for forming alliances; and examines the value that this type of arrangement adds. In particular, this paper will attempt a deeper analysis of the question why alliances choose to enlarge. NATO is a classic example of an alliance. The organization was launched by Western countries to ensure the security of its member states, which in practice meant deterring the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the states affiliated with it in the Warsaw Pact. It is a multilateral alliance based on a formal agreement—the Washington Treaty (1949)—that provides security guarantees for every member state. In addition, it has been a defensive alliance that aims at maintaining the sovereignty and freedom of its members. However, what distinguishes NATO from alliances of the past is its subordination to the United Nations Charter. One of the widely-accepted of an alliance is the one developed by Stephen M. Walt. He characterizes an alliance as “a formal or informal arrangement for security cooperation between two or more sovereign states.” There is another definition of an alliance that characterizes the institution “as a treaty-bound group of states that applies military means to security problems.” Taken together, these descriptions offer quite a narrow definition, as they perceive alliances as purely military phenomena, and do not take into account the existence of political alliances. With reference to the discourse on NATO, however, this definition seems to be suitable. The question of the formation of alliances is one of the principal areas of exploration of the neorealist school of thought in international relations. According to scholars representing this school, “the systemic structure, structural polarity and systemic anarchy, determine the formation of alliances. In particular, the anarchy characteristic of