Introduction
When one of Britain’s most influential labor leaders, war-time minister of labor, and later foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin teamed up with two-time French Prime Minister and three-time minister of foreign affairs, Georges Bidault, to work tirelessly for the formation of a military cum political alliance between Europe and the U.S., the elder statesmen would never have imagined that the product of their endeavor, would survive, mature and spread into the most enduring and impressive military alliance in the world (BBC, 2014; Britannica Editors, 2025). Indeed, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was born out of necessity which compelled formerly bitter enemies, Britain and France, to put aside their differences, to promote the economic integration of Europe and its survival through the formation of a military alliance that would deter a common, menacing foe, the communist Soviet Union (Kaplan, 2019). Today, NATO stands as arguably the most cohesive, the largest and oldest existing military alliance in the world.
It is to the eternal credit of Bevin and Bidault that the two officially recognized languages of NATO are English and French, NATO’s French acronym being “OTAN” meaning “Organization du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord.” Yet, NATO represents more than the political/economic and security interests of English and French-speaking member states. At inception, NATO had the U.S. and Canada as founding members across the Atlantic and 10 Western European states; namely: The United Kingdom, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands (Ogunnoiki and Ekpo, 2019). Twenty other member states have since joined the alliance, the youngest member state being Sweden, admitted into the fold on March 7, 2024.
NATO and mechanisms for interstate and international cooperation
Although NATO comprises mainly European and North American countries, yet at inception, care was taken to ensure that NATO has a legitimate foundation, and was compliant with regional and international laws, especially the United Nations Charter. For instance, Article Five of NATO is similar to Article 3 of the Rio Treaty, similar to Article 4 of the Brussels Treaty, and based on the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (Codification Division Publications, 2026; NATO, 2026; Fordham Law Review, 1951).
NATO’s Article 5, stipulating collective response to armed attack against a member of the alliance was invoked only once in its 76-yr history after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack against the U.S. In response, starting in Afghanistan, but as part of a UN-authorized International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), NATO led the international anti-terrorism force with the mandate to train and position Afghan national security force to ensure Afghanistan would never again be a nest for terrorist elements (NATO, 2022). For nearly a decade, starting on August 11, 2003, NATO-led ISAF, comprising nearly 150,000 well trained troops from 30 NATO member countries and 21 partner countries, worked to rid Afghanistan of terrorists and to transform Afghan forces from a ragtag, uncoordinated military into a coherent, competent security outfit. By 2011, Afghan forces began to take responsibility for internal security. The process was completed in 2013. However, a non-combat, NATO-led “Resolute Support” team was introduced on January 1, 2015, with a “train the trainers” mandate.
Around the world, NATO collaborating with partner countries, continues to wage a concerted and successful war against global terrorism. After identifying terrorism as the most frontal threat against citizens of member states, NATO, working closely with member states and partner countries, developed practical counter-terrorism programs emphasizing alertness, potentialities, and commitment. One of NATO’s key anti-terrorism initiative is the Defence Against Terrorism Programme of Work (DAT POW). The DAT POW was nurtured by the Conference of National Armament Directors (CNAD) and approved by the alliance member states’ Heads of State and Government in 2004 at the Istanbul Summit (Karadeli, 2021). The objective of the DAT POW is to help member states to build the technological capacity to meet their peculiar security threats. By pooling resources within NATO member states, each member state is equipped to detect and prevent non-conventional attacks such as those with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), as well as those involving chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons.
Internally, within the NATO force, continuous training initiatives are unfolded to reduce the vulnerability of the force. The force protection and survivability umbrella is an all-encompassing NATO training program that envisions all possible threats and proffers protection to personnel, materials, and facilities. They include but not limited to Large Aircraft Survivability against man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADs), Detection, Protection and Defeat of CBRN weapons, Non-Lethal Capabilities (NLC) training for crowd control and crisis management, Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) and Consequence Management (CM) geared towards limiting the impact of terrorist attacks (Karadeli, 2021). Member states, the UK and France have been in the fore front of supporting NATO Air Force Armament Group (NAFAG) in its annual training exercises regarding Large Aircraft Survivability against MANPADs.
Also, NATO Prague Summit in 2002 arrived at some important decisions that prepared the alliance to meet global security challenges in the fast changing world of the 21st century. One of those decisions was the creation of the Allied Command Transformation Act (ACT). ACT was designed to be a proactive, transformative command that would drive, implement and maintain NATO standards through rigorous and continuous training, education and innovation among member states. The objective is to keep NATO several steps ahead of possible security challenges (Roberts, 2014). In 2003, in order to compliment the work of the ACT, the Military Committee of NATO initiated and authorized the creation of NATO Centres of Excellence (COE). The first Centre of Excellence was established in 2005. Currently, NATO has 30 Centres of Excellence (COE) distributed among member states. Each COE specializes in one subject matter area and helps to distribute/share knowledge gathered among member states and NATO Allies (NATO, 2025). For instance, NATO COE in Lyon, France, established in 2008, specializes in air operation; NATO COE at The Hague, Netherlands, established in 2007, specializes in civic-military cooperation; NATO COE in Kalkar, Germany, established in 2005, specializes in joint air power competence; and NATO COE in Oradea, Romania, established in 2010, specializes in human intelligence (NATO, 2025). There are many more, each COE with its specialization. Specifically, the defined duties of the COEs are: Education and training; analysis and lessons learned; concept development and evaluation standardization; and doctrine development and standards to ensure effective interoperability (Roberts, 2014).
COEs provide a means of burden sharing and cooperation among member states. For instance, new member state, Sweden supports NATO Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) in Tallinn, Estonia, and NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (STRATCOM COE) in Riga, Latvia. Contributions to COEs give new member states like Finland and Sweden a sense of belonging. For older member states, COEs serve as a source of pride (Roberts, 2014).
Externally, NATO cooperates with non-member states around the world, regional bodies and the UN. On September 10, 2017, NATO led U.S.-initiated, and UN authorized Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The initiative was codified under UN Security Resolution (UNSC) 2170 which states inter alia that: “terrorism can only be defeated by a sustained and comprehensive approach involving the active participation and collaboration of all States…..” (U.S. Department of State, 2026). In 2018, acting on the request from the government of Iraq, NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) was launched during the alliance’s Summit in Brussels in mid-2018. NMI was a non-combat, advisory mission to keep Iraq free from the threat of ISIS and Daesh (NATO, 2025).
In October 2020, NATO Battlefield Evidence Policy was adopted to help identification and prosecution of terrorists. The policy also helps to hold foreign terrorists accountable and to bring them to justice. This way NATO fulfils member states’ obligation to UNSC Resolution 2396 which requires Member States to reinforce measures to curb the threat of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) through means and ways such as information sharing, border control, enhanced criminal justice and counter-extremism (United Nations, 2017).
Also in 2020, during the pandemic, NATO worked closely with allies using its experience in crisis management to support fragile member states. The alliance was involved in more than 100 operations to fly in crucially needed medical experts, moving patients, erecting mobile hospitals and distributing large volumes of Personal Protective Equipment (Federal Foreign Office, 2020).
NATO administrative leaders, field commanders and member states deserve commendation for the tireless work poured into adapting the alliance to onerous demands of global security in the 21 century. Through constant innovation, training, education and adaption, NATO has evolved from its narrow Cold War era mandate to a ubiquitous octopus with far reaching tentacles.
At this point, it is important to examine the events that informed the creation of NATO and consider its humble beginnings in order to appreciate the huge strides that the alliance has made over two-third of a century.
Underlying Events leading to the formation of NATO:
Sober lessons from the scourge of World War 2 and the need to check Communist Soviet Union from grabbing more states around the world, especially in Europe, were some of the reasons for the formation of NATO on April 4, 1949. The widespread destruction of Europe compelled European leaders to abandon their sovereignty-centric policies for a united and economically integrated Europe. Across the Atlantic, the U.S. also abandoned its isolationist principle and became directly involved in the rebuilding and protecting Europe through the Marshall Plan of 1947 that reinforced the Truman Doctrine, (Kaplan, 2019).
The $12 billion Marshall aid was an investment to be recouped with interest through Europe’s patronage of American goods. So, to protect this investment it was important that the U.S. contain the Soviet Union in line with policy recommendation of Soviet specialist and American diplomat, George Kennan. Also, communist Soviet incursions in Greece that led to protracted civil war between 1944 to 1949, laid upon Britain insurmountable financial burden, and at breaking point, Prime Minister Clement Attlee appealed to President Truman to shoulder the burden of keeping Greece out of the grasp of revanchist Soviet Union. On March 12, 1947, President Truman acceded to the British request by laying before Congress, a proposal for $400 million military and economic aid package for Greece and Turkey, signaling the birth of the “Truman Doctrine.” Further Soviet aggression typified by the Czechoslovakia Coup in February 1948 and the Berlin Blockade 1948-49, prompted leaders in Europe, the U.S. and across the Western world to set aside their long standing cautionary instinct toward one another and quicken their stride to form a military alliance that would protect their economic interest.
American sponsors of the idea of a trans-Atlantic defense pact such as John D. Hickerson, a career diplomat and director of State Department Office and Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, a Republican representing Michigan worked covertly, behind the scene, lobbying and overtly, with Vandenberg, professed isolationist but later convinced internationalist, making a famous speech in the Chamber of the Senate on January 10, 1945, where he suggested the idea of “collective security” as alternative to Soviet Stalin’s method of buffer states for protection of the homeland (United States Senate, 1994). Vandenberg reasoned that science has put in the hands of man weapons of mass murder from which no country, working in isolation, no matter how powerful, can protect itself from harm. This speech marked the beginning of bipartisan cooperation that would lead to the formation of NATO.
It is instructive therefore that it was the Vandenberg Resolution, passed on June 11, 1948 that gave official American seal to the alliance (U.S. Department of State Archive, 2001). The Vandenberg Resolution complimented the Brussels Treaty among Western European countries. The Pact signed on March 17, 1948 was a formal document affirming the decision of Western European countries to closely cooperate economically, politically, socially and militarily (NATO, 2026).
Challenges of NATO in the 21st Century – Enhancing Internal Cooperation
Although NATO continues to make huge stride in the war against terrorism, checkmating cyber-attacks, preventing state and non-state agents from receiving and utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), among other objectives; still, the alliance must focus on how to achieve greater cooperation among member states. At a meeting of NATO leaders, it was mentioned that nine member states failed to meet the set 2% GDP spending on security (Reuben, 2025). Spain for instance spent only 1.2% of its GDP and although Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez promised his administration would hit the mark before close of 2025, some citizens in Spain have queried the need to increase defense spending, claiming that defense spending and contribution to NATO have no noticeable impact on the wellbeing of citizens of Spain (Reuben, 2025).
Another challenge confronting NATO involves how to diplomatically counter Trump’s pronouncements: That the burden of the alliance rests squarely on the shoulders of the U.S.; that member states are not doing enough to share the burden of the alliance; and that the alliance has not done anything for the U.S. (Dale, 2026). More pressing however, is how to get Trump administration to commit to supporting NATO on consistent basis.
Conclusion
At the inception of NATO, deterring Soviet Union from spreading its communist wings around the world, especially in Western Europe, was one of the main objectives of the alliance. At the start of the 21st century, focus changed to counter-terrorism, as jihadist elements wreaked havoc in the U.S and in Europe. Currently, one of the concerns of European member states is how to contain Russia’s security threat. It therefore safe to conclude that NATO has come full circle, having to deal with security threats from Russia again, except that this time, there is no Harry Truman in the White House who would fully commit to the alliance and treat allies as equals instead of beggarly freeloaders.
References
BBC – History. (2014). Ernest Bevin (1881 – 1951). BBC. BBC – History – Ernest Bevin
Britannica Editors. (2025). Georges Bidault. Prime Minister of France. Britannica. Georges Bidault | French Resistance Leader & Prime Minister of France | Britannica
Codification Division Publications. (2016). Article 51: Charter of the United Nations. Codification Division Publications. Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications
Dale, D. (2026). Fact Check: Trump’s barrage of false claims in Davos about Greenland and NATO. CNN Politics Fact check: Trump’s barrage of false claims in Davos about Greenland and NATO | CNN Politics
Federal Foreign Office. (2020). Solidarity in times of crisis: transatlantic cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal Foreign Office. Solidarity in times of crisis: transatlantic cooperation during the COVID-19 pandemic – Federal Foreign Office
Fordham Law Review. (1951). The Law of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Fordham Law Review.
Kaplan, L. (2019). The Origins of NATO: 1948 – 1949. Emory International Law Review Vol 34.
Karadeli, A. S. (2021). NATO Defence Against Terrorism. European Security and Defence.
NATO. (2025). Centres of Excellence. NATO. Centres of Excellence | NATO Topic
NATO. (2022). ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014). NATO. ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014) | NATO Topic
NATO. (2025). NATO Mission Iraq. NATO. NATO Mission Iraq | NATO Topic
NATO. (2026). ‘The Brussels Treaty.’ Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence. NATO ‘The Brussels Treaty’ | NATO Official text
Ogunnoiki, A. O., & Ekpo, C. E. (2019). NATO at 70: The History, Success and Challenges of the Transatlantic Alliance in the Post-Cold War Era. African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research. Volume 2, Issue 2, (pp. 58-75).
Roberts, G. B. (2014). NATO’S Centers of Excellence: A Key Enabler in Transforming NATO to Address 21st Century Challenges. Working Paper.
Reuben, A. (2025). Why Trump is targeting Spain over NATO spending. BBC The Nato countries that missed their defence spending targets
United Nations. (2017). Security Council S/RES/2396 (2017). United Nations. S/RES/2396(2017) | Security Council
U.S. Department of State. (2026). About Us – The Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. U.S. Department of State. About Us – The Global Coalition To Defeat ISIS – United States Department of State
U.S. Department of State Archive. (2001). The Vandenberg Resolution: The UN Charter and Future Alliance. U.S. Department of State Archive. April 1999 NATO, The Origins of
United States Senate. (1994). Classic Senate Speeches. United States Senate. U.S. Senate: Classic Senate Speeches
