NATO summit "a fiasco"

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-545491,00.html


(...)
The old common enemy -- a Soviet-dominated Eastern Block -- is gone, having done away with itself. And NATO has so far not been able to agree on a new enemy. Is it to become the world's policeman now, or should it remain a self-defense pact?

The dispute over new members, the wrangling over communiqués and empty formulations cannot hide the true vacuum at the core of the ever-growing alliance. Instead of just talking about expansion, NATO needs a new concept, a justification for its existence, a guiding vision behind which all members can gather. "The Cold War is over," President Bush told his Russian colleagues on Friday. But what should follow on from that bipolar confrontation and the post-9/11 era is yet to be discussed.

There are completely different conceptions of who is protecting whom against whom and by what means. The alliance is militarily bigger and more powerful than ever -- yet politically weaker than it has ever been. There is a deep rift when it comes to all the important questions: On the one side the Americans and their friends in Eastern Europe, on the other the Germans, the French and their neighbors -- "Old Europe," in other words. And in the vain attempt to prevent these differences coming to the fore, the members in Bucharest preferred to postpone all important questions until the next summit.
(...)

I agree. The lack of a clear definition what self-understanding NATO should have after the cold war, I see as the major agent that corrodes NATO from within. i also cannot see that more aggressive new orientation of NATO acting globally, and the more defensive approach of seieng it as a local defense alliance, ever finding together under one label.

In other words: NATO will continue to silently brake apart. Maybe both American and europe need to relaise that America'S fopcus has shifted fromeurope, to the Asian region. In other words: maybe we would be better off and find better policies (while basing on more realistic expectations) when accepting this, and let it happen. Because the rift widening, and the problems growing come from clinging to an identity of NATO that simply is no longer there. Thus, everybody expects unrealistic things from it. Politicians' heads got stuck in the past, it seems.

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-545491,00.html


(...)
The old common enemy -- a Soviet-dominated Eastern Block -- is gone, having done away with itself. And NATO has so far not been able to agree on a new enemy. Is it to become the world's policeman now, or should it remain a self-defense pact?

The dispute over new members, the wrangling over communiqués and empty formulations cannot hide the true vacuum at the core of the ever-growing alliance. Instead of just talking about expansion, NATO needs a new concept, a justification for its existence, a guiding vision behind which all members can gather. "The Cold War is over," President Bush told his Russian colleagues on Friday. But what should follow on from that bipolar confrontation and the post-9/11 era is yet to be discussed.

There are completely different conceptions of who is protecting whom against whom and by what means. The alliance is militarily bigger and more powerful than ever -- yet politically weaker than it has ever been. There is a deep rift when it comes to all the important questions: On the one side the Americans and their friends in Eastern Europe, on the other the Germans, the French and their neighbors -- "Old Europe," in other words. And in the vain attempt to prevent these differences coming to the fore, the members in Bucharest preferred to postpone all important questions until the next summit.
(...)
I agree. The lack of a clear definition what self-understanding NATO should have after the cold war, I see as the major agent that corrodes NATO from within. i also cannot see that more aggressive new orientation of NATO acting globally, and the more defensive approach of seieng it as a local defense alliance, ever finding together under one label.

In other words: NATO will continue to silently brake apart. Maybe both American and europe need to relaise that America'S fopcus has shifted fromeurope, to the Asian region. In other words: maybe we would be better off and find better policies (while basing on more realistic expectations) when accepting this, and let it happen. Because the rift widening, and the problems growing come from clinging to an identity of NATO that simply is no longer there. Thus, everybody expects unrealistic things from it. Politicians' heads got stuck in the past, it seems.

Agreed. NATO is dying slowly. There's just no common vision, anymore.

PD

[nikimcbee]

I don't understand the purpose of NATO anymore. It was originally to counter Warsaw Pack, but that doesn't exist anymore. Half of Warsaw Pack has joined NATO. So what's the point? Why don't they just disolve NATO and make a new defense pact?

[Brag]

NATO is not only obsolete but counter productive. Instead of enhancing security it provokes hostility.

[Trex]

Old Roman maxim - never throw away your shield. You never know when it might come in handy.

[Tchocky]

NATO's sole purpose of recent years seems to have been to piss off the Russians. then complain about said Russians.

[Skybird]

Old Roman maxim - never throw away your shield. You never know when it might come in handy.

And? Is it a shield these days? It reminds more of a pilum carelessly being thrown somewhere away - and being returned with a deformed spearhead.

[Steel_Tomb]

The NATO mision should change I'm in agreement with that, but think it would be a waste to just throw in the towel. NATO should focus its atention on international terrorism. With the cooperation of NATO, it would be easier to share information amongst the existing communications networks set up. Would also make it easier to share the burden of "rehabilitating" Afghanistan, but only if other nations actually get their act together and live up to their commitments as NATO members. I was pleased to see Sarkozy mobilize more men for the theatre, nice to see the Froggie's give us a hand for a change.

[Skybird]

The NATO mision should change I'm in agreement with that,
Agreement with whom? It was not about how to run the a single mission, it was about the general orientation and self-definition (or lack of it) of the alliance. How single missions, or better: wars (in case of Afghanistan) get interpreted and handled by individual states, is not the origin but a consequence of this even more fundamental rift inside NATO.

[melnibonian]

NATO is not only obsolete but counter productive. Instead of enhancing security it provokes hostility.
True :yep: :up:

The problem with NATO is that for a number of reasons the United States do provide most of the funds, resources and facilities and (obviously) tend to use it for promoting their own interests (therefore it's an alliance only by name). Since the fall of USSR European countries don't really feel any real military threat and therefore they tend to rely on the Americans for their "Collective Security". Furthermore since the United States do favour a more "aggressive" foreign policy than the Europeans problems over the future and use of the organisation are bound to appear, as in Europe NATO is seen as a part of the US Defence Shield and not as an alliance. In other words the Europeans feel that the Americans start wars and they will have to pick up the bill and reconstruct the countries (until the next war of cource). The Americans on the other hand feel that they fight for the "common good" (as defined by them) but they fail to see that their interests are not necessarily the same as those of the other member states. In my opinion the Alliance is not working for two major reasons: The huge difference in power and resourses the two parties can and are willing to invest and the general world view of the two parties. The United States are the world's policeman and behave like that. Europeans tend to look more towards inside Europe and are willing to leave other parts of the world to the Americans (as long as they get their "commission" via trade, investment and security).

[STEED]

NATO's sole purpose of recent years seems to have been to piss off the Russians. then complain about said Russians.

Am I complaining about your remarks?


No, I have to agree. :yep:

NATO needs to get it's act together or we will have something new and nasty on our hands, question is when?

[MadMike]

When Russia finally becomes free of Putin's iron grip and his KGB/FSB assassins, then I guess the West and former Soviet bloc countries can breathe a sigh of relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Until then, forget about disbanding NATO.

Yours, Mike

Rheinland-Pfalz, '88-'92

[Skybird]

When Russia finally becomes free of Putin's iron grip and his KGB/FSB assassins,
If you mean by that it will become "democratic" in western and/or american understanding, you'll be set for a surprise, i think.

[Skybird]

NATO is not only obsolete but counter productive. Instead of enhancing security it provokes hostility.
True :yep: :up:

The problem with NATO is that for a number of reasons the United States do provide most of the funds, resources and facilities and (obviously) tend to use it for promoting their own interests (therefore it's an alliance only by name). Since the fall of USSR European countries don't really feel any real military threat and therefore they tend to rely on the Americans for their "Collective Security". Furthermore since the United States do favour a more "aggressive" foreign policy than the Europeans problems over the future and use of the organisation are bound to appear, as in Europe NATO is seen as a part of the US Defence Shield and not as an alliance. In other words the Europeans feel that the Americans start wars and they will have to pick up the bill and reconstruct the countries (until the next war of cource). The Americans on the other hand feel that they fight for the "common good" (as defined by them) but they fail to see that their interests are not necessarily the same as those of the other member states. In my opinion the Alliance is not working for two major reasons: The huge difference in power and resourses the two parties can and are willing to invest and the general world view of the two parties. The United States are the world's policeman and behave like that. Europeans tend to look more towards inside Europe and are willing to leave other parts of the world to the Americans (as long as they get their "commission" via trade, investment and security).

the threat potential of the Russians heavily lies in their energy-resources they are selling, trying to make Europe dependant on them (by trying to break into the European energy distribution market, bringing pipelines and energy stockmarkets under their monopole as well - and doing it so obviously that even the sleepy German government has realised that.

The US sees NATO much as a helping force to them, SACEUR always is an American, and America repeatedly has prevented and massively intervened in even shy attempts of the Europeans to form even limited autonomous European forces of themselves, always starting to press for such forces being run under NATO command or depending on NATO assistance to decisive degrees and being bound into NATO command structures. Paying the lion's share of the NATO budget is about paying money, but it also has a benefit for America: the European dependence often is complained about, but it also is a welcomed excuse to dominate NATO and reserve the right to influence it's orientation more than anyone else. But this latter detail nevertheless seem to break up since the past years. However, whenever there are calls for greater defence spending in Europe, or European military forces , Washington seem to take it as granted that both is in support of the American line within NATO, and is to support American polices, like NATO also was lured into Afghanistan. One can discuss wether European forces should be in Afghanistan or not, but what I am not discussing about is that NATO as a whole has absolutely no business in Afghanistan.

The US has experienced military missions and wars since WWII that not always went satisfactory, but never caused a vital strategic loss. Even Vietnam did not do that , and was just a loss of face. With Iraq, this has changed of course, but before Iraq, the US made the experience since WWII that using it's military power pays off, and usually sees victory for the US. also, Americans, both the currently living ones as well as all americans since the nation was founded) never experienced of getting attacked by means of war on their own soil, and seeing their cities destroyed by a foreign enemy from the outside. so it can be explained both historically and psychologically that America is more easy about going to war than any other Western nation. It also explained why 9/11 came as such a shock. Because it was a desaster that did not take place just somewhere else in the world - as usually to be seen on TV - but "right here amongst us".

So the distribution of duties and investments in NATO are an unhappy arrangement that makes America making demands towards Europe, and Europe making demands to America, and both sides simultaneously not really wishing it to be any different than it is. Europe loves to criticise America when it does something (or not), but often is all too happy that Almeria is doing it, so that Europe must not do it itself. America is complaining about small defence budgets in Europe, but before America would embrace a militarily truly independent Europe, it prefers to have the Europeans as a depending vassal. - the only problem is that this mutual arrangement may have worked in the past - but does not work anymore. with the end of the cold war and the strength of the European economy that today easily can rival the American economy and currently even is much better positioned and productive, and with the fading understanding why Europe and other countries should endlessly finance the sick American finance system, these old arrangements do not work anymore. New NATO members from the East currently still sit close to America, for thankfulness of America having them helped in and seeing it as the traditional counterpart of the former oppressive Soviet regime. Smaller members hope to raise their profile in NATO by being at will of America. but the majority of the old European "core" since long is aware that America's interests and Europe's interests are not the same - and that in many fields both spheres are even rivals and competitors.

One should come back to an understanding of NATO being a regional defence alliance, no global police force. Only such an understanding for a limited role of NATO can allow it to exist and being helpful in (currently unlikely) future conflict in the north Atlantic region while avoiding to be influenced and touched by the many economical and cultural and scientific fields in which America and Europeans in fact are rivals. These rivalries will influence and damage the alliance the more, the more NATO tries to widen it's self-definition and self-understanding.