The Nature of NATO (no spam)

[fable]

At the moment, the European members of NATO and Dubya are taking advantage of endless photo ops to send images home of all their smiling faces. Disagreements aren't mentioned, past, present or future. You can feel the love! But away from the cameras, many divisive issues remain: the EU lifting its arms ban on China. The fat contracts in Iraq going 100% to the US. And behind them all, perhaps, the major point that the US and the EU are split in treating NATO as a coalition or an alliance.

Is there a role in the near future for NATO, and if so, what should it be? What form do you think NATO should take, and to serve what purpose?

[Luis Antonio]

I guess the first thing is try to control Dubya and avoid another direct conflicts/invasions in the present future. Period. Why? To control de wave of terror in the middle east, to stabilize the oil price. Europe relies on the rest of the world for fuel.

Regarding the contracts on Iraq, not 100%, but 99%, lets be fair. And they invested a lot of money on this war, so Dubya wants it back on taxes, oil contracts, oil stocks, and on rebuilding efforts. Why? Well, he invaded Iraq to increase his spendings, so that the GNP would grow higher (Government spendings, Y=C+I+G) and so that he would have a stable base of "democracy operations" on middle east. He cant, of course, notice that its out of control, but that is merely a detail, lifes aint contracts. Lifes are expendable.

Y=C+I+G

Y= Income, GNP (the amount of cash you have)
C= Consumption (SP?) (what people/economic entities spend)
I= Investments (what is spent into generating resources in the economy, industrial, commercial)
G= Government spendings.

NATO is also very dependant on fuel. So they should try opening new markets for energy resources - such as alcohol from Brazil or Natural Gas from Bolívia, or create credit lines for new techs regarding energy generation. That would reduce the impact felt by the whole world when oil crisis came to happen. And by replacing their default fuel, they also may be already working the Kioto treaty, reducing pollution levels (alcohol and GNV are less pollutive(sp) and more efficient than gas/diesel (not biodiesel, but oil based diesel), and that should make the US feel some international pressure to sign the treaty and avoid us a terrible death by co2 ingestion, or by greenhouse effect.

And the purpose of NATO, in the past years, has been only this:
http://www.nato.int/pictures/2005/photoweek/s050222.jpg
Hope they increase the ammount of attitude, and political maneuver, reducing the ammount of smiles. honest.

[Chanak]

Considering the origins of NATO - and its express purpose of countering the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations - I wonder if there's value in its continued existence. NATO is primarily a military alliance. The last I recall, NATO HQ was located in Belgium...at least, that's where the NATO documents I once handled and stored in Germany originated. As an interface between military forces from various nations, it would have some use. It forced the US military to adopt metric standards, anyway, when dealing with NATO manuevers, joint training, and shared supplies and materiel. (there IS some value in that )

I'm not so sure, however, if it is really viable at all. To be honest, the last I heard of NATO was when I received my security briefings as a classified document custodian, and the joint training exercises I participated in while stationed in Europe. That's it.

[Obsidian]

I have to confess, my only experience with NATO has been through Nato Stock numbers for equipment....
There is still a fair number of joint excerises though. I was out with the brits not to long ago. Damn gurkhas are cool people....

As for Nato's continued value, I don't know. It certainly needs to be updated for a new millenium and a new series of little wars, rather than one big one.

Nato doctrine is still effective though, and I think switching from Nato standards to a different standards would be ridiculously expensive.

[fable]

Regarding the contracts on Iraq, not 100%, but 99%, lets be fair. And they invested a lot of money on this war, so Dubya wants it back on taxes, oil contracts, oil stocks, and on rebuilding efforts. Why? Well, he invaded Iraq to increase his spendings, so that the GNP would grow higher (Government spendings, Y=C+I+G) and so that he would have a stable base of "democracy operations" on middle east. He cant, of course, notice that its out of control, but that is merely a detail, lifes aint contracts. Lifes are expendable.

But Dubya's not going to get it back in taxes. I remember reading an analysis a few months back of the effect created by the oil revenues offsetting US military expenditures in the invasion. The revenues were not expected to reach 1% of the expenditures. Of course, like so many predictive economic figures, these are open to interpretation, but this much was can logically say: windfalls to the American fossil fuels industry will follow many years of investment in rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, assuming it can be rebuilt in a state of unannounced, continual warfare with many successful attacks on fuel installations, daily. And the Bush administration has provided tax rebates that mainly affect the high-end industries which would be the source of such revenues. So the Bush argument that the oil contracts were done to return money to the US federal budget is specious.

Bringing us back to subject, I have to wonder whether the kiss-kiss going on at NATO headquarters isn't equally specious. Bush wants a NATO that will follow its lead regardless, and the European nations in NATO, to varying degrees, don't seem too keen on this. From what little I can see, it appears that Bush is back in the "wooing" stage of Europe that he was before Iraq beame the desired target of his administration.

[Moonbiter]

IMHO NATO lost all credibility when they went on the offensive in Bosnia, and then continued their involvement in offensive operations globally. NATO is and should have remained a defence pact, reacting to direct military threats against their members. Today it's just a tool for the US to use as they want, under the ridiculously transparent pretense that "we're all in this together." It's become a joke, and as the EU grows stronger as a military entity, we will see an increasing number of nations pulling out of military commitments to the Pact. However, for a lot of virgin nations not yet allowed into the EU, the prospect of becoming a NATO member is a good one. It leaves them with an arguably false sense of security, that I wonder if the other more major members are ready to commit to. A great example is Slovenia, my second "home nation," who campaigned furiously to become a NATO member up until they became an EU member in May last year. After that, they obviously couldn't care less. And why should they? NATO membership would just be a burden to them now. I think it's just a matter of time before the EU starts pulling their wheight as a military superpower, and then NATO will be completely redundant from an European point of view. Mind you, I think that's why The Shrub is so eager to cement the cooperation now, when the US is bleeding their resources dry on war. It will be much easier to start another one under the monicker "NATO operation," and I have a sneaking suspicion that is what this is all about.

[Audace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis Antonio Regarding the contracts on Iraq, not 100%, but 99%, lets be fair. And they invested a lot of money on this war, so Dubya wants it back on taxes, oil contracts, oil stocks, and on rebuilding efforts. Why? Well, he invaded Iraq to increase his spendings, so that the GNP would grow higher (Government spendings, Y=C+I+G) and so that he would have a stable base of "democracy operations" on middle east. He cant, of course, notice that its out of control, but that is merely a detail, lifes aint contracts. Lifes are expendable. Y=C+I+G Y= Income, GNP (the amount of cash you have) C= Consumption (SP?) (what people/economic entities spend) I= Investments (what is spent into generating resources in the economy, industrial, commercial) G= Government spendings.

Well Keynes is sorta out-dated... And the influence of Government spending on the multiplying effect is more marginal then most people think. (As proven by the New Deal when this theory was first made practice).

But to get on topic, Bush doens't want a united European military because that would mean a loss of US influence. So the only option left is a strong(er)NATO alliance (including the Ukrain). That 's why de Hoop-Scheffer was an ideal candidate for his position. Member of a historically pro-US party but harmless enough for the major European countries. The future of NATO depends on the will of the EU to form it's own untited military or not. Either it stays a real alliance or it becomes more of an ideological cooperation like the UN.

[Sytze]

NATO was founded as a collective self-defense against Russia after World War II. The US set the tone in its existence, because Europe depended on the US and its atomic weapons to serve as deterrence or as a blockade against Russia. NATO had to coop with many problems during its existence, such as Burden Sharing, decolonization and the undemocratic behavior of certain members. If it wasn’t for Moscow, I’m sure the organization would’ve ceased to exist by now.

And there lies the problem. NATO existed and was kept alive because of the Cold War. Now that is over, we enter a different world where either the US governs alone or the international organizations become the leading actors. The international organizations are mayor threats to NATO’s military existence. And let’s face it, NATO was founded for self-defense and its main, if not sole, purpose is to be a military organization.
As for NATO’s threats, you’ve got the OSCE, the UN, the (West-)EU and of course its internal dividedness.
OSCE turned out to be good at diplomacy, but was a disappointment on the military level. This was primarily caused by the US and Russia, who were reserved about the importance of the organization. The UN, in turn, achieved a fairly good result in the Gulf War, but was a complete fiasco in the Balkan. The UN isn’t able to achieve its military goals and needs the NATO for that. Same goes for the EU, who seemed to be unable to play an important role in the Balkan. Plus, the groups within the EU are often divided. Perhaps the EU will eventually be a military power to be reckoned with, but so far Great Britain and the US try the stop the EU from achieving that goal. Future will tell, I guess. Perhaps the European Union will develop its own army like Moonbiter suggested (and I expect that to happen), perhaps it won’t.
However, for now NATO’s mean threat is its internal dividedness. There are a lot of differences of opinion between the US and Europe. Europe blames the US for being unilateral, inflexible and not taking international law very serious. The US blames Europe for being too lenient concerning issues as terrorism, Iran and North Korea. Also, Europe is too busy with itself (expanding) and it cuts too much of its military spendings.

Of course NATO has had its successes as well. More countries joined, the relationship with Russia improved (although its going downwards again), it acted with military successes in the Balkan and, last but not least, NATO is expanding its military across the world.

But until the EU will really build up an European military force, NATO won’t have to fear that much from outside threats. So the question is whether or not NATO can overcome its internal differences. It is looking good now, but like fable suggested, it are only looks. Europe, and especially the US, try to show the outside that everything is going well and fine and that the difference are solved, but that are just appearances…

[jopperm2]

I personally don't like NATO. i=It had it's purpose, now there is no common threat. It's basically reduced to a bullying tool. "Not only will we come after you with the US, but England and all the other really quality militaries out there." (No offense if anyone served in a non-NATO nation, I didn't mean it literally) It's basically the UN without the third world.

[Godslayer]

I disagree with you there. You see there is a common threat. Terrorists are not limited to exclusive activety within the U.S. There are terrorist bombings and killings all over the world: Israel, Ireland, Central and Latin America, and, obviously, Iraq. Granted, the terrorist groups are not acting in conjunction with eachother, at least not directly. However, one terrorist act gives courage to others to instill terror in others. Also, when one terrorist group acts, it causes terror in other places, thus increasing the effect of terrorism. So, you see, all terrorism affects everyone worldwide. this is the common threat. this threat may not be a specific country, but does that make it any less of a threat? NO!! This is NATO's purpose in today's world. it may have been created to protect against Russia, but it can and is being used and adapted to fight a new threat.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer I disagree with you there. You see there is a common threat. Terrorists are not limited to exclusive activety within the U.S. There are terrorist bombings and killings all over the world: Israel, Ireland, Central and Latin America, and, obviously, Iraq. Granted, the terrorist groups are not acting in conjunction with eachother, at least not directly. However, one terrorist act gives courage to others to instill terror in others.

But is this the case? Does some group in Zimbabwe, suffering under one of the most oppressive regimes in the world currently, feel heartened because a terrorist strike in Iraq works? I have to question this. Lumping all terrorists together, all causes, all regimes and situations, doesn't work well. One might as well conclude that just because a bloodthirsty dictator like Guatamala's Rios Mott got away for years literally with murder, doesn't mean every dictator in charage of a nation elsewhere feels they can do the same, and never pay the consequences. Individual circumstances require indvidual treatment, and the terrorist that ignores this is a dead terrorist, IMO.

[b]Also, when one terrorist group acts, it causes terror in other places, thus increasing the effect of terrorism. So, you see, all terrorism affects everyone worldwide. this is the common threat. this threat may not be a specific country, but does that make it any less of a threat? NO!! This is NATO's purpose in today's world. it may have been created to protect against Russia, but it can and is being used and adapted to fight a new threat.[/QUOTE]

And what about state-sponsored terrorism? This has been going on at least as long as rebel terrorism, almost certainly longer. What deals with this threat? While the Russian military blithely engages daily in human rights violations on a massive scale in Chechnya, and China labels anybody in Tibet who tries to keep the local culture alive a "terorist," who helps redress these wrongs?

[giles337]

Quote:

And what about state-sponsored terrorism? This has been going on at least as long as rebel terrorism, almost certainly longer. What deals with this threat? While the Russian military blithely engages daily in human rights violations on a massive scale in Chechnya, and China labels anybody in Tibet who tries to keep the local culture alive a "terorist," who helps redress these wrongs?

I couldn't agree more. But is NATO doing anything. There is always going to be a need for an international group to "police" the world. But the point is, there will always need to be someone to police the police, and so on and so forth. I cannot see NATO being disbanded, for the sheer political weight this holds; but personaally. it is dead weight, which should be trimmed sooner rather than later.

[CM]

I must say i agree that NATO is out-dated, but it will not be ignored. The US needs NATO to help with wars and occupation. NATO already exists in Afghanistan and i am betting they will be in Iraq soon as well. The dynamic of NATO is changing. Firstly it was a defense pact like CENTO and SEATO. Then it became a secondary unit to UN peace keeping forces. Now the US and EU have basically turned the UN in to a Security Council only organization, NATO fulfills the role of the UN peace keepers. Something 90% of the UN delegates are not happy about, but that is a different story.

NATO is no longer a defense pact. It is a military alliance and is used as a military force. Bosnia. Serbia and Kosovo are examples. They are in Afghanistan and will be in Iraq, so they have shifted the role of the organization. Consider them another form of the UN peacekeepers. Only difference is that they can go in "hot" and kill people without any consequences in the ICC or ICJ.

This honestly is a very dangerous dynamic. Countries should not have the right to individually act like policing forces. Only the UN should be allowed to do that.

NATO personally is not needed anymore. But it will be kept around to make sure that certain policies which are not acceptable by the international community will be implemented.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM This honestly is a very dangerous dynamic. Countries should not have the right to individually act like policing forces. Only the UN should be allowed to do that.

I'm in full agreement with that. But isn't using NATO in this fashion merely a recognition of realpolitik? For many years, the UN did nothing in a host of conflicts, because one or another member with a permanant seat on the Security Council could veto any attempt to send peacekeepers. So the UN didn't enter Hungary during the 1956 uprising, or the Prague Spring uprising of 1969, because the Soviet vetoed all attempts at that.

And even when the Soviet empire collapsed, this problem still remained. The UN cannot send peacekeepers to Israel, thanks to the US vetoing any attempt. The UN can't send peacekeepers to Chechnya, because Russia has decided that the brutality exercised through its troops there no longer bears watching. China has obstinately refused to allow any peacekeepers anywhere on its soil, meaning the lands its conquered, claiming territorial rights.

There remains a wariness in many nations that the UN is a very flawed tool for peace when immediate action on the ground is required. So the Africans, the Europeans, etc, have these alliances intended at least in part to enforce a territorial status quo. They have other purposes, of course, and we all know the Bush administration and neo-cons view NATO as a subject of US "imperial will." But if NATO wasn't there, wouldn't it be necessary under the circumstances with many regional problems in Southern Central Europe and Russia growing more authoritarian, to create it?

[CM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I'm in full agreement with that. But isn't using NATO in this fashion merely a recognition of realpolitik? For many years, the UN did nothing in a host of conflicts, because one or another member with a permanant seat on the Security Council could veto any attempt to send peacekeepers. So the UN didn't enter Hungary during the 1956 uprising, or the Prague Spring uprising of 1969, because the Soviet vetoed all attempts at that. And even when the Soviet empire collapsed, this problem still remained. The UN cannot send peacekeepers to Israel, thanks to the US vetoing any attempt. The UN can't send peacekeepers to Chechnya, because Russia has decided that the brutality exercised through its troops there no longer bears watching. China has obstinately refused to allow any peacekeepers anywhere on its soil, meaning the lands its conquered, claiming territorial rights.

I am an idealist when it comes to politics and a big fan of the UN and international community. I agree they will veto whatever they don't want, but that doesn't give countries the right to use their own military alliances to enforce what they believe is right. Don't get me wrong i do believe we need policing of the world. But i believe it must be done within International rules and norms. You can't just act independently. You can't say your view is correct and ignore the rest of the world. That is what has lead to a great deal of the wars and colonialism in the past.

Quote:

There remains a wariness in many nations that the UN is a very flawed tool for peace when immediate action on the ground is required. So the Africans, the Europeans, etc, have these alliances intended at least in part to enforce a territorial status quo. They have other purposes, of course, and we all know the Bush administration and neo-cons view NATO as a subject of US "imperial will." But if NATO wasn't there, wouldn't it be necessary under the circumstances with many regional problems in Southern Central Europe and Russia growing more authoritarian, to create it?

Even though it is flawed, any actions taken by nations to police force the world is contrary to international law and norms and ensures that the UN is weaker. If countries went to the UN instead of making sure what they want is done we would not be in many of the situations we have today.

Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, East Timor etc would have been solved and you would have no justification for the atrocities committed in the name of "policing the world".