University Babeș -Bolyai Cluj -Napoca [604980]

University "Babeș -Bolyai" Cluj -Napoca
Faculty of European Studies

Europe, the North Atlantic Alliance
and the issue of Muslim terrorism

Student: [anonimizat]

2020

EUROPE, THE NORTH ATLANTIC ALLIANCE
AND THE ISSUE OF MUSLIM TERRORISM

In the first years after the conclusion of the Malta Treaty (2 -3 December 1989) and the
abolition of the Warsaw Treaty, NATO has experienced a period of internal crisis mainly due to the
difficulty of a nswering some extremely important questions:
– What role will the North Atlantic Alliance still play?
– What would be the new strategy after the end of the cold war?
– What is the attitude to be taken toward the former Warsaw Treaty Member States and the c ommunist
countries in general?
– How should we continue to negotiate with Russia for the enlargement of the Alliance?
– What weight should the European security body have, which is still thought long before the
Maastricht Treaty?
The US has been most concerned about finding the right answers to their interests, to all these
questions. At the end of 1993, the US initiative advanced the Partnership for Peace project and
formed the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC), with the aim of reaching out to countries of
the former Warsaw Treaty, including the former USSR. The US offer was intended, among other
things, to promise the joining of Eastern European States to NATO and to direct all the concerns and
efforts of these c ountries toward this alliance, indirectly blocking other forms of organizing European
structures (Western or Eastern) of security.
NATO has not planned to abolish it concurrently with that of the Warsaw Treaty. Even before
its self -dissolution on 8 February 1990, NATO Secretary -General Manfred Woerner said: "Even if the
Warsaw Treaty is self -isolating, this is not a reason for NATO's dissolution. On the contrary, there is
every reason to show that our sense as a factor of stability will then becom e even more important."
The General Secretary of the Alliance was informed about the content of the Malta Treaty and about
the agreements of the Soviets to dismantle the economic and military structures in Eastern Europe,
which would make it possible and e asier for Western countries to take over Eastern European States.
Terrorism has played a major role in shaping the global security landscape over the last decade,
one important manifestation of this being its consequences for NATO. The 9 septembe r 2001 attacks
resulted in a considerable and unexpected commitment for the Alliance, which subsequently
experienced a reorientation towards new challenges; within a very short time, terrorism reached the
very top of NATO’s agenda.

Introduction

Through this essay I will present relations between Europe and the North Atlantic Alliance, as
well as the issue of Muslim terrorism. Marked by numerous and significant difficulties, without
benefiting from a solid regulatory and institutional f ramework, the relationship between NATO and
the EU has resulted in a consistent vision of the international security environment, conceptual
innovations, but also joint actions, carried out in the areas of operations. The change in the
international contex t in which this relationship is defined and materialized inevitably has a clear
impact on it.

1. Europe and the North Atlantic Alliance

NATO is the only military alliance in history that has not disintegrated after the disappearance
of its enemies. Moreover, at the Alliance meeting in Rome in November 1991, a new strategic concept
was developed that allowed, from the Alliance's point of view, military operations beyond NATO
borders ("out of area"). The concept is based o n the rationale (interpreted by some analysts as "a

pretext") of the need to maintain peace and manage crises. It was therefore proposed that the possible
war and military attack (called by some analysts "aggression") be in the name of peace. The first
action where the new role was practiced was Bosnia. Some researchers believed that the deployment
of NATO forces in the region was primarily a means of helping the Alliance, not Bosnia.
After the break -up of the USSR, NATO backed the decision not to be the first to resort to
nuclear weapons, as it has net primacy in conventional arms, as the Warsaw Treaty was not the first
to come and the former republics within the USSR became "independant". The Russian Federation
has also changed its nuclear strate gy, saying that, due to political -military changes in Europe, it is
likely that it will use first nuclear weapons if it is in danger.
The North Atlantic Alliance Ministerial meeting in November 1998 in Brussels showed that the
process of continui ng NATO enlargement had been stopped for the time being, without any further
deadline being specified. Then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reaffirmed the "open doors"
principle. As a matter of fact, since February 1998 President Clinton had repea ted his declaration of
intent on further NATO integration. Surprisingly, in early February 1999, Gerhard Schröder firmly
stated that no other Eastern European country would be admitted to NATO.
A point of interest and divergence at the same meeti ng was the question of using nuclear
weapons, if necessary. Germany and Canada have proposed that the Alliance should give up the right
to use nuclear weapons first in the event of a conflict. The proposal was rejected by the United States,
the United King dom and France. The US Secretary of State also proposed that the principle of
Alliance autonomy toward UN should be upheld, so that the Alliance's actions could no longer be
stopped by a possible veto within the Security Council. This strategic concept is not shared by the US
European allies and can at the same time complicate very much the relationship with the influential
strategic partner (which some analysts call "domination") of the US, the Russian Federation. The
Brussels ministerial meeting presented a divided North Atlantic Alliance between the US and Europe,
both of which have different security priorities. While the US acts offensive, around the world,
generally in line with the agreements with the Russian Federation, European States have built a
security system based on the defense of national territory.
The dismantling of communist regimes, the dismantling of the USSR, the withdrawal of the
armies of the former Warsaw Treaty from central Europe, the implementation of the CF Treaty, the
NATO enlargement to the east were not enough facts for the North Atlantic Treaty to consider its
mission completed. The offensive to the east continues. Europe is a small continent. The great powers
outside NATO and the world's largest resources are in Asia . Russia is also more Asian than European,
in terms of resources, the extent of territory and the location of strategic military bases.
During the Alliance's evolution, during the cold War and especially in the post -communist
period, NATO turned from a military defensive organization into a political club faithful to the
political -economical -military lines that can be agreed to by the USA and partly (but not entirely) and
some of their allies.
The organization has been kept for 40 years for fear of communism. The organization is
currently maintaining itself primarily to promote US interests and, in part, some of the other members
of the Alliance. Nor has the fear of Russia's military arsenals and the enormous potential, in all ways,
of As ian States, especially China and Japan, disappeared, but also of the Arab world, all of which are
in full swing and incorporating strong anti -American, anti -Jewish and, in some cases, anti -European
feelings. Following the changes after the Malta Treaty, a Europe of schiophone and helpless military
and political decision on a global scale was born in the course of the next decade. The EU has a single
market, a single currency, a single border, but with these, neither war nor peace can be made. Europe
has no unique decisions and no single ministers. Only the defense one is unique, but it is at the NATO
Integrated command headquarters and is the US military uniform. These realities were evident during
the US and UK attack on Iraq (2003).
The NATO summ it in Brussels in November -December 1998, which is very important for
Europe's relations with the US, NATO and the conflicts in the Middle East, convinced the US that it
must find solutions to keep Europe in the "boat" of the US world political line. Washi ngton has always
insisted on the political line that US and EU interests are the same everywhere in the world and that

they must continue to go side by side. The disappearance of communism and of the former Soviet
Union has complicated the US Executive's m ission to maintain influence in Europe.

2. The North Atlantic Alliance and the issue of Muslim terrorism

With regard to counter -terrorism, the Alliance has been seeking to play a role at the
operational level, engaging itself militarily in the strategically important Mediterranean basin and,
indirectly, in Afghanistan and the Balkans. NATO's strategic concept1 promoted in 1999 includes
terrorism in the spectrum of general risks to the Alliance, along with sabotage, orga nized crime or
disruption of the flow of critical resources.
The events of 11 September 2001, however, fundamentally changed the allied perspective in
tackling terrorism. Although a new strategic document was not promoted in 2001 -2006, addressing
the Alliance's course of action in relation to the evolution of the terrorist threat, terrorism was one of
the key elements of the Allied -level debate on the transformation of the international security
environment.
NATO’s only functioning count er-terrorism operation, called Operation Active Endeavour
(OAE), started in October 2001 15 , its aim being to patrol the Mediterranean and monitor shipping
to help detect, deter and protect against terrorist activity. Started as an operation mainly relyin g on
deployed forces, OAE has progressively achieved a new “information focus”; gathering information
and intelligence through a network of sensors and databases has become its new operational pattern.
By opening OAE to its partners, NATO has de facto form alized the importance of operational counter –
terrorism cooperation in a multilateral framework, putting extra emphasis on the key role played by
interoperability among Allies and Partner Countries in data sharing. Overall, the operation is having
a positiv e impact, for at least two reasons.
First, it acts as a major deterrent against terrorist activities in the Mediterranean area, having a
beneficial effect on regional security. NATO’s naval presence in the basin has become an
acknowledged fact, c onstituting a disincentive to potentially illegal activities, including terrorism.
There has thus been a greater perception of security for all shipping. According to 2008 figures, NATO
forces have monitored more than 100,000 vessels, boarding some 100 sus pect ships. In addition, over
500 ships have taken advantage of NATO escorts through the Strait of Gibraltar. NATO’s OAE assets
have successfully detected, reported and intercepted hundreds of suspicious vessels, many of them
engaged in transport of illega l explosives, drugs or other contraband.
Secondly, it represents an effective tool through which Allies and Partner Countries have
strategically enhanced their internațional cooperation and expanded maritime security, with
involvement of internat ional organizations and coastal authorities. The operation initially involved
only Member Countries, but since 2004 Partner Countries have also contributed, formally agreeing
to support the effort with information exchange and/or provision of ships (physic al assets have already
been deployed, for example, by Russia and Ukraine, and Tactical Memoranda of Understanding have
been signed with Israel, Georgia and Morocco). In this way OAE has acted as a catalyst for greater
regional engagement.
Indirec tly, NATO is also playing a part in fighting terrorism în its biggest operational
commitment, Afghanistan, where it has been leading ISAF since August 2003. Although it is not
primarily a counter -terrorism operation, ISAF is making a significant contributi on to removing the
conditions in which terrorism flourishes. NATO peacekeeping forces continue to act against terrorism
in the Balkans, focusing on illegal movements of people, arms and drugs (widely recognized as

1 NATO's strategic concept is the document that includes political direction on the development and use of Alliance forces and
means. The first NATO Strategic concept was developed in 1949, followed by five other options, the last dating from 1999
(Washingt on Summit).

important assets for the terrorist network ) and supporting regional authorities in ensuring the level of
border security necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.
Within this military cooperation perspective, a major role is played by NATO’s program of
exercises to develop and practise in tegrated civil -military operations, enhancing the interoperability
of different forces and bringing together expertise and know -how. By using comprehensive NATO
standard operating procedures, a wide range of countries (Member States and Partners) are
devel oping the capacity to work closely together to respond to a hypothetical terrorist attack. For
example, in 2008 a major field test, Trial Imperial Hammer, was held in Italy to exercise counter –
terrorism technology while seeking to forge a joint all -source intelligence architecture. Cooperative
Lancer and Cooperative Longbow are live land exercises which have counter -IED elements. Similarly,
Cooperative Marlin is a maritime live exercise with elements of counter -terrorism. At the Istanbul
Summit NATO leaders attempted, among other tasks, to enhance cooperation with partners in the area
of civil emergency planning, including the possibility for MD partners to have direct access to the
Euro -Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre. In the context of this cooperation, field
exercise “Armenia 2010” was the first consequence management exercise open to participation by
these partner countries – even if the only one which contributed teams to the exercise was Israel.

3. Ensure the security of nation al territories against terrorism – a
fundamental NATO mission

In combating the current terrorist threat, the Alliance must play a similar role to that it played
in the face of the Soviet threat during the cold War.
First, national territory security against terrorism is not a new concept for NATO. During the
cold War, the Alliance had plans to fight the special Soviet forces, Speznats, if they managed to
dislodge beyond the front line and enter our societies.
Secondly, military forces have always been prepared to support civilian authorit ies if and when
required, in response to natural disasters, to close borders or to protect infrastructure of particular
importance.
The main responsibility of any leader is to provide security for its citizens. In this regard, NATO
was a particul arly effective instrument during the cold War, when its defense shield ensured the
deterrence that convinced the Soviet Union not to trigger an invasion. In recent years, NATO has
managed to reinvent itself as an alliance capable of intervening to export s tability to problematic
regions outside the territory of the allied States. The European Union and NATO must cooperate to
capitalize the full spectrum of their political, legal, police, diplomatic and military resources. The
European Union has policies to combat terrorism that concern areas not covered by NATO, such as
cross -border law enforcement, cooperation on border control and foreign policy. Trans -Atlantic
cooperation is essential, and the European Union and the United States are already cooperating
closely in these areas. In addition, EU and US counter -terrorism policies are complementary.

Conclusions

In the light of the aforementioned considerations, in the widespread field of combating
terrorism NATO cannot have an all -inclusiv e role. To face a composite threat like terrorism, it is
necessary to move towards a multifaceted approach whereby NATO concentrates on the military
aspects of combating terrorism. This is where it enjoys a comparative advantage. There are many
other inter national actors, such as the United Nations, the EU, the World Health Organization, Interpol
and the IAEA, which should deal with the diplomatic, law enforcement, judicial, communicational
and other aspects. No single approach can be sufficient on its own: a military action, for instance, can
temporarily annihilate a terrorist group’s operability, but can hardly ever remove the root cause of the
threat. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine NATO playing a major role in the economic or financial
domain of co unter -terrorism. This is the reason why the Alliance needs to cooperate closely with other
organizations, providing an efficient level of coordination in order to avoid any pointless overlapping

of effort. In the final analysis, it has become clear in almo st a decade of fighting terrorism that the
role NATO can play is limited by the obstacles discussed above, and that the Alliance will not become
a primary tool in this field. Though not playing a leading role, its support to the campaign against
terrorism will nevertheless undoubtedly remain of crucial importance.

Bibliography

1. Lupu, Corvin. 2016. „Europa, Alianța Nord -Atlantică și problematica terorismului musulman, la
sfârșitul secolului al XX -lea și în primii ani ai mileniului al III-lea”. În Corvin Lupu, Giulia Ene,
„Aspecte privind Europa în sistemul relațiilor internaționale”, Editura Elion, București 2016.
2. Bernasconi, Claudia. 2011. „NATO's fight against terrorism. Where do we stand?”. Research Paper ,
https://www.files.ethz. ch/isn/128562/rp_66.pdf
3. Bardají, Rafael și Keohane, Daniel. 2006. „Ar trebui să devină asigurarea securității teritoriilor
naționale împotriva terorismului o misiune fundamentală a NATO?”. Revista NATO ,
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/roman ian/debate.html