Lawrence S. Kaplan - NATO and the UN: a peculiar relationship

A Peculiar Relationship

Lawrence S. Kaplan

University of Missouri Press

Columbia and London

Copyright 2010 by

The Curators of the University of Missouri

University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri 65201

Printed and bound in the United States of America

All rights reserved

5 4 3 2 1 14 13 12 11 10

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kaplan, Lawrence S.

NATO and the UN : a peculiar relationship / Lawrence S. Kaplan.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8262-1883-4 (cloth edition : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-0-8262-1895-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-0-8262-7217-1 (electronic)

1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.2. United Nations. 3. World politics1945-1989. 4. World politics1989I. Title.

JZ5930.K36 2010

341.23dc22

2009040743

This paper meets the requirements of the

American National Standard for Permanence of Paper

for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48, 1984.

Designer: Stephanie Foley

Typesetter: FoleyDesign

Printer and binder: Integrated Book Technology, Inc.

Typeface: Adobe Garamond

to Jan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Robert H. Ferrell, whose friendship I have cherished for sixty years, introduced me to Beverly Jarrett, director and editor-in-chief of the University of Missouri Press, in the summer of 2006. He urged me to work with her on this project. Her enthusiasm required little urging on my part, and I enjoyed her support until her unexpected retirement in 2008. Clair Willcox took over the assignment and, along with project editor John Brenner, has seen the manuscript through to completion. I am grateful for their support, and to Bob in bringing me to the Press in the first place. In the course of research and writing I am indebted to those scholars whom I mention in the introduction, and most particularly to Ryan Hendrickson, who read and commented on a number of the chapters; to Alan Henrikson, whose pioneer studies of NATO and the UN were an inspiration for me; to Gary Ostrower, the leading American historian of the UN; and to David Yost, whose special expertise in this subject was of great help. From Brussels, prominent NATO officials Jamie Shea and Diego A. Ruiz Palmer responded to basic questions I had about NATOs relations with the UN. And a special note of thanks goes to W. Bruce Weinrod, defense advisor, U.S. Mission to NATO, for informing me about the UN-NATO declaration of September 23, 2008.

I am happy to acknowledge the continued cooperation of Georgetowns documents librarian Kristina Bob, whose familiarity with the documents facilitated my studies. Her colleagues at the reference desk, especially Mary Bowen and Maura Seale, responded with unfailing good cheer to my many importunities. Steve Rearden, Stanley Bober, and Morris Honick offered advice and support at all times. And finally, I dedicate this book to my wife, Janice, whose patience I have tried too many times over the years.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACTWARN: activation warning

AFSOUTH: Allied Forces, Southern Europe

ANC: Arme Nationale Congolaise (originally Africanization of the Force Publique)

CIA: Central Intelligence Agency

CJTF: Combined Joint Task Forces

CSCE: Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe

DPC: Defense Planning Committee

DPO: Department of Peacekeeping Operations

DRV: Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam)

EC: European Community

EEC: European Economic Community

EU: European Union

EUFOR: European Union Forces

FO: British Foreign Office

FRUS: Foreign Relations of the United States

GVN: Government of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam)

IFOR: Implementation Force

IPTF: UN International Police Task Force

ISAF: International Security Assistance Force

JNA: Yugoslav Peoples Army

KFOR: Allied Occupation Force in Kosovo

KLA: Kosovo Liberation Army (radical)

LDK: Democratic League of Kosovo (moderate)

MSC: Military Staff Committee

NAC: North Atlantic Council

NACC: North Atlantic Cooperation Council

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland

NLF: National Liberation Front (the Vietcong)

NSC: National Security Council

ONUC: Operations des Nations Unies au Congo

OSCE: Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe

PRO: Public Record Office, Kew, England

RPR: Rassemblement Pour la Republique

SACEUR: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

SALT II: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

SCUA: Suez Canal Users Association

SFOR: Stabilization Force

SHAPE: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe

SPRSKA: Serb Republika Sprska

SR: Senate resolution

SS: Schutzstaffel, a unit of Nazi intelligence forces, initially Hitlers bodyguard

TNA: The National Archives, Kew, England

UNAMA: UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan

UNAMI: UN Assistance Mission in Iraq

UNEF: United Nations Emergency Force

UNHCR: UN High Commissioner for Refugees

UNMIBH: UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina

UNMIK: UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo

UNPROFOR: United Nations Protective Force

UNSC: UN Security Council

UNSCR: UN Security Council Resolution

USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WEU: Western European Union

WMDs: weapons of mass destruction

WU: Western Union

INTRODUCTION

Nature of the Relationship

There is no more contentious subject in the history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) than its relationship with the United Nations (UN). Granted, NATOs efforts were devoted primarily to coping with the Soviet empire and communist expansion during the Cold War. Involvement with the UN was not the focus of NATOs or the United States attention in those years. Although the UN inevitably was present at NATOs creation in 1949, over the next forty years for the most part NATO went its own way. When their paths did cross, it was rarely an amicable connection. The UN repeatedly asserted its ultimate authority over an indifferent or often hostile NATO. Yet at critical moments in the Cold War, the UN served as an arena for NATO partners to work out their differences, as in the Suez crisis in 1956, and NATO served as an enforcer in support of UN peacekeepers, as in the Congo civil war in the early 1960s.

When the Soviet empire imploded in 1991 there was a dramatic change in the relationship, which brought the two organizations closer together. Sometimes in harmony but often in discord, they collaborated in efforts to manage global crises in unstable environments. As NATO enlarged its scope in the 1990s, it needed the UN to give legitimacy to its activities even as it chafed against the claims of the world organization. Internal frictions within NATO frequently inhibited its efforts to function independently of the UN, as in the Balkans Wars of that decade, and in the unilateral actions of the United States in the twenty-first century.

The war against Iraq since 2003 and the ongoing war against the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001 have tested NATOs ability to collaborate with the UN in the management of crises. In Iraq both organizations initially played minor roles as a consequence of the U.S. decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Yet as Iraq descended into chaos, both the UN and NATO agreed to provide modest support for reconstruction of the country, and the United States retreated from its unilateral stance. More prominent was the presence of both organizations alongside the United States in the war against the Taliban forces in Afghanistan that generated terrorist actions against the West. Here too the unilateral U.S. control of operations in 2001 yielded to the UN, legitimizing NATO and U.S. efforts to defeat common adversaries. While questions of ultimate authority have not been settled, NATO is no longer simply a regional organization (as the UN has periodically proclaimed), and the UN is no longer an irrelevance (as NATO has identified it in the past). A symbiotic relationship between the two organizations prevails at this time (2009) in such a critical area as Afghanistan.