i s s u e military matters [01]

The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

(Front Cover Photo) More than fi ve decades since NATO’s Europe/Western Mediterranean, United Two Belgian workmen founding, it is hard to imagine that the States/Canada, and the North Atlantic mark out the area on the Organisation did not always have the Ocean) to examine issues of military site of the “new” NATO complex military and political structures import in each respective area. Headquarters in Brussels, that have long been key features of its in March 1967. It is home decision-making process. When the The fi rst meeting of the Military Committee to the NATO Secretary Alliance was created by the Washington was held on 6 October 1949, a day after General and support Treaty of 4 April 1949, it possessed very its creation, in Washington DC. staff; national military little in the way of political structures It was composed of the chiefs of defence delegations from NATO and virtually no military establishments. from 11 of the 12 founder countries and Partner countries; (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the International Military The fi rst organisational structures were Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Staff; and the Military created by the Washington Treaty itself. Portugal, the United Kingdom and the Committee, which shapes Article 9 established a Council that became United States), and civilian representation military direction from known as the North Atlantic Council (NAC), from Iceland, which did not (and still does political guidance and the top political decision-making body not) have military forces. The Defence provides consensus-based within the Alliance. Initially composed of Committee no longer exists as such, and military advice to NATO’s member country foreign ministers, it was thus the Military Committee is the oldest civilian authorities. The authorised to “set up such subsidiary regularly convened body in NATO after the other Belgian-based NATO bodies as may be necessary.” The Council North Atlantic Council. headquarters is near was specifi cally instructed to “establish Mons, less than an hour immediately a defence committee which The Alliance’s initial organisational southwest of Brussels, shall recommend measures for the imple- structure was very loose. Bodies meeting where the Alliance’s mentation of Articles 3 [maintain and at the ministerial level were only obliged military operations are develop individual and collective capacity to convene once a year, although they planned and coordinated. to resist armed attack] and 5 [an armed could have met more frequently. During attack against one or more of them shall be the early years when the Alliance structure considered an attack against them all].” was being put into place, the Council actu- ally met four times between September The Defence Committee, composed of 1949 and May 1950. However, it soon defence ministers or their representa- became clear that a mechanism was tives, came into existence at the fi rst needed for decision-making during the NAC meeting of 17 September 1949. The periods between ministerial-level Council Council also directed the new Defence meetings. It was not until a major NATO Committee to establish subordinate bodies reorganisation was approved at the Lisbon for defence matters: a Military Committee Conference of 1952 that a true, full-time composed of the chiefs of defence of permanent session of the NAC came into member nations; the Standing Group, existence. In parallel, a Secretary General a three-nation executive body for the was appointed to head a new international Military Committee with representatives staff for NATO and chair the permanent from France, the United Kingdom and the session of the Council. United States; and fi ve committees known as Regional Planning Groups (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Southern

2 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

NATO foreign ministers sign the accession agreement in Paris, admitting the Federal Republic of Germany as the Alliance’s 15th member, on 23 October 1954. The Organisation has admitted new members five times since the original 12 nations formed NATO in 1949.

On the military side of the Alliance, the Despite these changes, the Standing Military Committee faced the same situa- Group remained an unwieldy instrument, tion as the Council: because it existed at a in which national viewpoints tended to very senior level, it did not meet very fre- outweigh international perspectives. Faced quently. Nonetheless, it had a permanent with the pending relocation of NATO’s executive body – the Standing Group – political and military headquarters from to carry out its decisions, direct military France, the Supreme Allied Commander planning, and provide staff support. Europe, General Lyman Lemnitzer, in May 1966 suggested a major reorganisa- The limitation of the Standing Group’s tion: one Supreme Allied Commander membership to France, the United Kingdom NATO, to replace the three positions of and the United States was a real source SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander of irritation to the other nine NATO mem- Atlantic, and the Chairman of the Military bers. Eventually, pressure exerted by the Committee. non-members for more infl uence during the periods when the Military Committee was not in session led to the creation of The Standing Group, the Military Representatives Committee, initially composed of with national liaison offi cers as “Accredited officers from the United Military Representatives.” Nevertheless, the States, the United Standing Group, with its permanent offi ce, Kingdom and France, full-time operations and infl uence over was the forerunner to the agenda-setting, remained the predominant International Military Staff. body giving direction to planning within The latter was created in the Military Committee during the 1950s. 1967 to support the work This situation also contributed to making exclusively in a corporate, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe or international capacity, of (SACEUR) at that time the pre-eminent the Military Committee and source of military advice to the Secretary its chairman. General and the NAC. In 1957, each non- member of the Standing Group was invited to send a planning offi cer and in 1963, all NATO members were fully represented. From then on, the Standing Group became known as the International Planning Staff.

3 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

Realising that such a major change would THE ISSUE OF “COMMAND” be very diffi cult to implement at a time when NATO was attempting to deal with In the early 1950s, in addition to the the French withdrawal from the integrated disputes about who would give direction military structure, General Lemnitzer also to Alliance military planning, were the presented an alternative proposal to the questions of who would actually do the Secretary General: the establishment of planning, and then execute the plans in a “completely integrated, international time of war. The military structure initially military staff, headed by a director of three- developed made no provisions for war- star rank, to serve as the executive agency time command and control. It had no fi xed for the Military Committee.” On 15 June military headquarters or commanders and 1966 the North Atlantic Council adopted relied instead upon committees with rep- this proposal, and on 10 February 1967, resentatives from the member states. As a the International Military Staff was born. consequence, the only military bodies sub- The Standing Group stood down and in ordinate to the Military Committee and the October that same year the International Standing Group during the Alliance’s early Military Staff moved permanently from years were the fi ve Regional Planning Washington DC to NATO Headquarters in Group committees, none of which was Brussels, where it works still, on behalf of capable of providing command and control the Military Committee. to NATO forces.

Initially, the chairmanship of the Military Europe did have one combined military Committee was held on a one-year rota- headquarters in 1950, but this belonged tional basis by each of the members to NATO’s predecessor, the Western according to the alphabetical order of Union Defence Organisation, created by nations in English, beginning with the the Brussels Treaty of 17 March 1948 and United States. As such, in 1949-50, signed by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, American General Omar Bradley became the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. the fi rst chairman. This approach held fi rm Although it had a military headquarters until 1964, when it became clear that the at Fontainebleau, France, the organisa- range, scope and complexity of issues and tion lacked a true command structure. activities called for a full-time Chairman to Additionally, its senior military offi cer, assist and guide the work of the Committee. Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of The Chairman is now elected by a simple Alamein, was the chairman of a commit- majority vote by all NATO chiefs of defence, tee – the Western Union’s Commanders- and normally serves a three-year term, in-Chief Committee – and not a supreme though this can be for a shorter period, or commander. Neither Montgomery nor the extended one year. He also acts exclusively three subordinate heads of the land, sea, in an international capacity. or air forces had any operational authority in peacetime, and “Monty” did not even The Military Committee, composed of all have real authority over the commanders, NATO’s chiefs of defence, is the highest as was demonstrated by his frequent dis- military authority in the Alliance and its agreements with the head of the ground chairman the senior offi cer in NATO. forces. Still, the development of a profes- It is through him that consensus-based sional, international headquarters and military advice is brought forward to the loyalty to an Alliance concept rather than political decision-making bodies and the staff representing national perspectives, Secretary General. found root here.

At the NAC meeting of 16-18 September 1950 in New York, Alliance foreign minis- ters discussed the need for the “creation, in the shortest possible time, of an inte- grated military force adequate for the

4 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

defence of freedom in Europe.” This work BUILDING THE MILITARY had been expedited by the invasion three STRUCTURE months earlier of South Korea by com- munist North Korea, backed by the Soviet General Eisenhower and staff from seven Union. There was concern that the Soviets other countries were now faced with the might turn this war into a world-wide strug- daunting task of establishing an Allied com- gle by supporting a similar invasion of mand structure that would be acceptable Europe, where Germany was also divided to all 12 NATO members. The “SHAPE Field Marshal Viscount into communist and non-communist [Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Montgomery of Alamein blocs. Following consultations with their Europe] Planning Group” quickly began briefs media on the governments, the ministers reconvened to draft the new command and staff struc- successful defence in New York on 26 September 1950 and ture for Europe, benefi ting greatly from of Europe following a announced that an integrated force would the plans – and later the personnel – it NATO exercise in 1955. be created “at the earliest possible date” inherited from the Western Union Defence “Monty” was the Deputy and would be placed “under a Supreme Organisation. To avoid unnecessary dupli- SACEUR for seven Commander who will have suffi cient cation of Allied defence efforts, the Western years, having previously delegated authority to ensure that national Union agreed that its defence roles and served the Western Union units allocated to his command are organ- responsibilities would be assumed by Defence Organisation. ised and trained into an effective, inte- NATO when SHAPE was activated on The development of an grated force in time of peace as well as in 2 April 1951. Field Marshal Montgomery international headquarters the event of war.” moved over as well, serving as the Deputy and staff working on behalf Supreme Allied Commander Europe for the of the NATO Alliance and In December 1950, the NAC approved next seven years and played an important not national interests the principle of German contributions role in SHAPE’s early development. found root here. to European defence, and had reached agreement on the establishment of an integrated military command structure with Supreme Commanders for both Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. There was uni- versal agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that General Dwight Eisenhower be selected as the new SACEUR. He had led the Allied forces to victory in Western Europe during World War II and was now serving as president of Columbia University. His offi cial appointment as SACEUR was announced at a meeting of the NAC on 18-19 December 1950, and a small group of offi cers was dispatched to Paris to plan for the new headquarters.

5 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

Much of the early years of the Alliance were spent building the organisational and physical structures to effectively coordinate and defend against a direct military attack. Large standing forces required many large headquarters. Pictured, a NATO joint army and air force HQ in Germany.

As the military structure started taking In 1951, Allied Command Europe was shape, it was clear that military consi- divided into three regions: the Northern derations were not the only factors that Region including Norway, Denmark, the needed to be taken into account and that North Sea and the Baltic; the Central questions of personalities, politics, and Region consisting of Western Europe; and national prestige were also very impor- the Southern Region covering Italy and the tant. Eisenhower quickly discovered that Mediterranean (Greece and Turkey were the task of “devising an organisation that not yet members of NATO). Resolution satisfi es the nationalistic aspirations of of command problems in the Northern twelve different countries or the personal Region required years of planning and ambitions of affected individuals is a very delicate negotiations before an integrated laborious and irksome business.” NATO Command – Allied Forces Baltic Approaches, with German and Danish The greatest controversy concerned an personnel – came into existence in 1962. appointment over which he had no control, The Central Region underwent its own that of the Supreme Allied Commander considerable organisational changes up Atlantic (SACLANT). As a second to 1953, then remained virtually the same major NATO commander, he would be until NATO-wide changes in 1966-67. equal in status, not subordinate, to the SACEUR. In December 1950, the NAC Trying to devise a command structure had decided that the United States should that would satisfy the national interests of fi ll the SACLANT post, which meant that France, the United Kingdom, the United Americans would hold both of NATO’s States, Italy, Greece, and Turkey in the Supreme Commander positions. This southern area proved diffi cult. It took two raised a storm of controversy in the United years to integrate these countries into Kingdom, fuelled by opposition leader a NATO command structure that made Winston Churchill’s acerbic criticisms of sense only if viewed in political rather the government. Against this backdrop, than military terms. The initial challenge the SHAPE Planning Group worked to was reconciling differences between the build a true command structure for their United Kingdom and the United States own area of responsibility, which proved to over command appointments, with the be a slow process. British determined to maintain their tradi- tional dominance in the Mediterranean.

6 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

French desires for a stronger say were THE MILITARY COMMITTEE met with the creation of a Western ADAPTS ITS WORK Mediterranean Command under a French admiral in September 1951, and As organisation and planning within three months later an Italian-led Central the integrated military structure gained Mediterranean Command was established, momentum in the late 1950s and 60s, the with the UK’s naval forces remaining out- Military Committee faced another diffi cult side the whole Southern Region command task, that of refi ning and improving its own structure. structure and work. During the 1950s, for instance, it was recognised that in an era The impasse began to be resolved in of high-performance aircraft, the secu- January 1952 when the British dropped rity of NATO’s airspace could no longer their objections to an American serving in depend on the sum of each member the post of SACLANT, and that headquar- country’s air defence efforts. In 1955, the ters became operational in the US in April Military Committee approved a concept for of that year. This was all made easier by a coordinated system for air defence, and the United States’ agreement in late 1951 in 1957 agreed on a requirement for an that the boundaries of SACLANT’s com- early warning system. mand should be redrawn to exclude the British home waters, in particular the vital They also supported the creation of special channel ports. In February 1952 this area NATO forces whose multinational composi- became part of a third major NATO head- tion and capability for early deployment or quarters, the Allied Command Channel, activation would represent Alliance soli- whose commander was the British admiral darity. The fi rst of these forces, the Allied in charge of the Home Fleet. “Channel Command Europe Mobile Force Land was Command” was theoretically equal in created in 1960, and was followed by the status to Allied Command Europe and Standing Naval Force Atlantic in 1967. Allied Command Atlantic, even though its forces and geographic area of responsi- The Military Committee was also deal- bility were much smaller. By March 1953, ing with the implications of the French NATO had also created Allied Forces announcement in March 1966 to withdraw Mediterranean under British Admiral of the from the integrated military command Fleet Earl Mountbatten of Burma, reporting structure. This decision became a catalyst to the SACEUR. for NATO reform, informed by the Harmel Report, which shaped NATO’s political Given the confl icting views and interests, strategy and its military structure for dec- it was a major accomplishment that a ades. The French decision also resulted command structure acceptable to all par- in the move of SHAPE and NATO head- ties was developed at all. In the end, it quarters from France to Belgium in 1967. was a temporary solution with problems For almost 30 years thereafter, France’s of competing commands and overlapping participation in the Military Committee responsibilities. However, despite its obvi- was that of an observer, before it decided ous fl aws, no one wanted to disturb this in December 1995 to resume its seat. As laboriously achieved solution, at least for such, the French Representative to the the moment. Military Committee has the same status as other chiefs of defence and military representatives, with full voting rights and responsibilities on all topics except the defence planning process, the functioning of the integrated military structure, and nuclear issues.

7 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

Preparing contingency In 1967, the Military Committee, with aggression or coercion. With this objective plans, pre-positioning ministerial approval, adopted a new strat- in mind, NATO decided to reorganise its huge stocks of equipment egy of Flexible Response. This strategy air forces in the mid-1970s, modernise its and supplies in Europe, called for a balance of both nuclear and air defence system, and in 1978, create a and conducting large- conventional forces capable of deterring NATO airborne early warning force. scale exercises with aggression, defending against attack, and an emphasis on heavy if that was inadequate, permitting escala- The work of the Committee was also mechanised forces tion under political control. During the late becoming increasingly more complex as were some of the main 1960s and 70s, the Military Committee defence planning processes were cre- NATO outputs during the also became increasingly involved in ated during the 1970s to project military Cold War years. Here, armaments standardisation, manpower requirements further into the future. The American forces conduct a requirements, infrastructure priorities, May 1972 Soviet-American agreement to bridge crossing during the logistics and integrated communications limit strategic weapons also signalled the 1983 REFORGER (REturn systems in an overall effort to improve beginning of an era dedicated to nuclear of FORces to GERmany) NATO military preparedness. arms reductions. In the late 1970s and exercise. This annual throughout the 1980s much energy was undertaking demonstrated The organisational structure remained directed toward talks on conventional the ability of the United relatively static throughout the 1970s and forces reduction and confi dence-building States to quickly deploy 80s, with minor changes, normally addi- measures to reduce the fear created by forces to Germany in the tions, to headquarters and force structure, large standing armies in Europe. In this, event of a conflict with the as NATO and Warsaw Pact armed forces the Military Committee played an impor- Soviet Union. continued to grow in quantity and quality. tant but largely behind-the-scenes role, The main focus of the Military Committee advising ministers of the possible effects continued to be geared toward the ways of negotiations on military aspects of and means to deter the Soviet Union from Alliance security.

8 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

During the Cold War, NATO regularly practised defending member states from attack by conventional and nuclear forces. As challenging as those exercises were for the forces taking part, including for these soldiers on Alloy Express in Norway in 1982, they were relatively easy to support and sustain. Today, complex and multiple NATO operations take place thousands of kilometres from home bases, in austere conditions, sometimes in hostile environments, and for months or even years at a time.

In the 1970s and particularly the 1980s, much of the Military Committee’s work consisted of advice to political authorities on nuclear and conventional arms reductions. Thousands of nuclear warheads and major equipment pieces from both sides were removed from inventories and permanently disabled. Pictured here is the withdrawal of nuclear arms from Ukraine. (© ITAR-TASS)

9 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

END OF ONE ERA, TRANSITION its boundaries. At the time, 7.5 million TO ANOTHER Warsaw Pact soldiers and almost 8.5 mil- lion NATO soldiers were in the active and By the 1980s, NATO bore little resemblance reserve ground forces alone. Warsaw Pact to the loose original structure of 1949. On soldiers were buttressed by 145,000 main the civilian side, the most important reforms battle tanks and artillery pieces, against had taken place at Lisbon in 1952, with NATO’s 61,000 and a military organisation the creation of a permanent session of directed by a surfeit of almost 80 NATO the North Atlantic Council, an International headquarters. Successful as it was as a Staff, and a Secretary General. The key collective defence organisation, NATO developments on the military side had had but to sit and prepare in the event of a occurred one year earlier, following the direct military attack. NAC’s decision to create an integrated military command structure and appoint In early November 1989, the Berlin Wall Supreme Commanders for Europe and fell, and fi ve weeks later Soviet Foreign the Atlantic area. The process of creating Minister Eduard Shevardnadze visited Estimating the specifics of the integrated command structure was not Brussels for talks with NATO Secretary the NATO/Warsaw Pact always easy, due to competing national General Manfred Woerner, the fi rst such military balance was the interests, old rivalries and confl icts between visit by a minister of a Central or Eastern focus of much staff work some of the member states, as well as European government. After four decades on both sides during the clashes of personalities. Nevertheless, of relative predictability and stability, Cold War. Here, at a 1989 compromises were ultimately reached and NATO was soon to be faced with regional news conference, Russian consensus was achieved. instability at its borders. Responding to officials are explaining the “end of the Cold War” was certainly their calculation that there At its 40th anniversary in 1989, the not NATO’s fi rst major test of resolve, but was now an “approximate Alliance stood at 16 members, with virtu- would present it with the most formidable parity” between the ally no military undertakings or dialogue challenge in its history. opposing military forces. with non-member states, nor any military (© ITAR-TASS) operations or exercises conducted outside

10 military matters [01] The beginnings of NATO’s military structure: birth of the Alliance to the fall of the Berlin Wall

KEY DATES

4 April 1949 Signing of Washington Treaty and creation of NATO 17 September 1949 First North Atlantic Council meeting 6 October 1949 First Military Committee meeting 2 April 1951 SHAPE becomes operational 10 April 1952 SACLANT becomes operational Appointment of fi rst Secretary General, full-time NAC, and 1952 creation of the International Staff 10 February 1967 International Military Staff created

The Berlin blockade and the construction of the Berlin Wall came to epitomise the divide between East and West.

11 © NATO 2006 MM1-ENG-0106

International Military Staff

NATO International Military Staff and NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 1110 Brussels - Belgium, website: www.nato.int, email: [email protected]