NATO members wonder: Will defense promises hold?

[Mike Baker]

LINK

LONDON - In the aftermath of Russia's brief war with Georgia, the United States and its NATO partners face questions about the very foundation of their alliance — the pledge enshrined in the 59-year-old North Atlantic Treaty that an unprovoked attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all.

Georgia, while not yet a NATO member, is pushing for early entrance despite Russia's strong objections.

The Russian incursion in August raises questions for newer NATO members — like the three Baltic states that were part of the Soviet Union before the fall of the communist empire in 1991 — about whether and how NATO would respond in the event that Russia chose to invade their territory.

That issue forms a part of the backdrop to a meeting here Friday of allied defense ministers who are divided over how to treat their relationship with Russia and how to proceed with NATO military reforms.

No firm decisions are expected. The matter will be further considered by NATO foreign ministers in December.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who was a specialist in Soviet affairs during his career at the CIA, said Thursday that while the crisis in Georgia has caused concerns within NATO, he does not believe the alliance faces the likelihood of war with Russia.

Gates, speaking with reporters in advance of a NATO defense ministers meeting, said there is a sharp division of opinion over what the Russian war with Georgia means for the alliance and its relations with Moscow.

"I think we need to proceed with some caution because there clearly is a range of views in the alliance about how to respond," he said. The split, he said, is between alliance members in eastern Europe and those in western Europe.

More on link.
Deadpan

 

[oligarch]

LINK


More on link.
Deadpan

In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?

 

[Good2Golf]

In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?

Because the UN has built a strong reputation for being ineffectual in dealing with security issues...  ???

 

[Niteshade]

Not to mention, strength in numbers.

Nites

 

[George Wallace]

In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?

I can't believe I just read that.  That should be posted in the "Stupidest thing I head today" thread.

 

[TCBF]

In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?

-We DON'T need NATO, per se..

- NATO was designed to stop The Commies from over-running WESTERN Europe.  Nobody said anything about defending former parts of USSR from Russia.  The 'NA' stands for 'North Atlantic' not 'Near Asia'.

- However:  We do need AN alliance, as pointed out above, as the UN is an anti-democratic collection of thugs and murderers.  Right now, NATO fits the bill. But, we have to know when to stop.  If Eastern Europe needs an organization to unite them, they should form one.

 

[George Wallace]

NATO is more than a Military Alliance.  It is also an Economic and Political alliance.  There is much more to NATO than the military aspects, but no one pays any attention to those facts.

 

[armyvern]

ABCA

 

[George Wallace]

ABCA

Totally different alliance, especially if we go back to ANZCANUKUS. 

 

[Fusaki]

ABCA

Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.

 

[TCBF]

Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.

- Logical: The Anglosphere.  It is no accident that those countries who retained English Common Law are the most resilient democracies.  Everything from the Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution of 1688, English Bill of Rights of 1689...

.. to abandon the roots of common law is to abandon freedom.

 

[George Wallace]

Thats what I'm say'n. They're the ones who's values are most similar to our own.

SO?  That is still nothing to do with the future of NATO.  It is just another alliance that we find ourselves in, due to our common language and values.  You make it sound as if we should only be in one alliance.  We have always been in a multitude of alliances, through our own efforts, through our participation with others in the UN, NATO and NORAD.  We are also in the Organization of American States with the USA, Mexico, and the countries of South America.  Once upon a time we were in an organization called SEATO.  We have numerous military alliances besides NATO, but that isn't the question, is it?  

NATO is an alliance that will continue well after the Warsaw Pact is gone, due to its non-military functions.

 

[Fusaki]

NATO is an alliance that will continue well after the Warsaw Pact is gone, due to its non-military functions.

What non-military functions can be carried out better by NATO instead of a civilian treaty in it's place?

 

[George Wallace]

What non-military functions can be carried out better by NATO instead of a civilian treaty in it's place?

You are not paying attention.  It has civilian treaties in place.  Perhaps you may want to look into what exactly NATO is.


What is NATO?

 

[Fusaki]

You're going to have to draw me a picture.

When I clicked on your link it made it pretty clear that NATO's primary role is "To safeguard the freedom and security of it's members by political and military means."

But in your opinion NATO still has a role outside of military functions. I still don't see what that function is.

You could argue that it fulfills political functions, but that term is so broad that it doesn't really mean anything different then any other non-military treaty.

 

[armyvern]

It does have a civilian side to it, but I'm still all for going the way of ABCA.

There's just something about NATO these days ... that obviously has a whole lot of people wondering about it's future.

 

[Mike Baker]

It does have a civilian side to it, but I'm still all for going the way of ABCA.

There's just something about NATO these days ... that obviously has a whole lot of people wondering about it's future.

Just so I understand clearly, this is America, Britain, Canada, Australia, correct?


*Deadpan wonders why he is still asleep*

 

[George Wallace]

Just so I understand clearly, this is America, Britain, Canada, Australia, correct?


*Deadpan wonders why he is still asleep*

Yes.  In some instances in the past it was ABCAN, but New Zealand is not in so many "joint" "activities" lately.

This, ABCA, is nothing to do with NORTH ATLANTIC, but is on a wider scale, being world wide.  NATO is more interested in its own 'portion' of the globe and affairs that will affect it.  ABCA would be covering a much broader sphere of influences.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the absence of a Warsaw Pact, why do we need NATO?

An excellent question, oligarch, but one must say, in a rather Clintonesque manner, it all depends on the meaning of "we."

Europe needed NATO, desperately, in 1948. Stalin’s Russians were baleful aggressors, a malignant force spreading across Europe, intent on plunder, pillage and slavery. But Europe was quite unable to defend itself against the USSR and, simultaneously, rebuild their economies and socio-political institutions – with MASSIVE US support.

Digression: there are, indeed, socio-economic and political aspects to NATO. They were inserted into the original treaty largely at Canada’s insistence (albeit with much Dutch and Scandinavian support) but the so-called Canada clause (Article 2) was never, ever more than a busy work project designed, by Dean Acheson, to keep Lester Pearson away from the main work of treaty crafting. The use of the clauses, through the decades, reflects their real purposes; they are, at best, window dressing and quite peripheral to the business at hand.

One can, and I would, argue that Russia still remains a malevolent force and, therefore, Europe still has a security problem. The difference is Europe itself. We no longer have a North Atlantic alliance; rather, we have a rebirth, with America as midwife, of Mitteleuropa with an Atlantic appendix that, like its human counterpart, seems to be a part in search of a useful role. Russia doesn’t like Mitteleuropa – and who can blame them? But how will Russia react? What can it do to stop a traditional threat to its vital interests? It is when we survey the whole range of Russian options that we can define a real threat to continental Europe. Thus, THEY need a military alliance but it is not clear to me that Canada, that “we,” needs to be part of it.

Our interests are best served by a peaceful, prosperous, free trading Mitteleuropa and we have ⅔ of that now – Europe is peaceful and prosperous. Unfortunately the European Common Market, the core of the European Union, was designed as a defensive, protectionist trade agreement aiming to frustrate and prevent free trade.  It does so, as designed, today. Actively defending a ‘free’ trade area that is designed to exploit (rather than trade freely with) outsiders, like us, does not seem, to me, to be a high priority task for Canadian taxpayers.

Personally, I doubt that NATO is still useful as the UN’s primary military sub-contractor. NATO is so large and the treaty is so restrictive that the coherent military planning and execution – that is completely beyond the UN’s own capabilities – seems beyond NATO’s grasp. NATO is cumbersome in an age when we – the great big, global “we” represented by the UN, this time – need nimble, flexible organizations.

My, personal, choice is ABCA+. We do not, I believe, need another alliance: our experience with NATO ought to tell us that weeks of hard nosed negotiations in the infamous smoke filled rooms only buys us strategic rigidity – just what we do not need. Rather we need a new, informal, Gn that deals with global strategic/security matters.

This loose, informal ‘organization’ needs head of government level support, affirmed by annual meetings, and it needs some common, agreed (ratified at head of national defence department level) standards for interoperability of systems, equipment and procedures that are ‘proved’ on a periodic basis. This organization could, I think, quickly plan and organize ‘coalitions of the willing' to address security crises on behalf of the UNSC.
 

 

[Mike Baker]

Yes.  In some instances in the past it was ABCAN, but New Zealand is not in so many "joint" "activities" lately.

This, ABCA, is nothing to do with NORTH ATLANTIC, but is on a wider scale, being world wide.  NATO is more interested in its own 'portion' of the globe and affairs that will affect it.  ABCA would be covering a much broader sphere of influences.

Ah okay, I understand it now. Thanks George. But;

Do you think that this 'pact' would actually work out, since those nations are fairly like-minded, or do you think that it might just turn out to be another League of Nations?

-Deadpan