We still need NATO?

Question: What is the purpose of NATO in this present geo-polithichall situation?

Iama


.....................

'National Caveats' Among Key Topics at NATO Meeting


Source: US Department of defense


"NICE, France --- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld today likened some NATO operations to a basketball team that practices together for months, only to have some players refuse to participate when the game starts.

Restrictions some countries place on how NATO can use their forces – known as "national caveats" – are among the major topics under discussion at the informal meeting of NATO defense ministers here this week, Rumsfeld told reporters in his traveling party.

Caveats present "a quite complex problem for the NATO commander" running an operation, the secretary said.

Countries in the alliance have officers assigned to NATO headquarters, he explained. "They learn to function as a team, and they work together. And then when the heads of state decide that NATO is going to do something … the people from their countries serving in those headquarters have been practicing as a team with the others," Rumsfeld said. "And therefore, when the decision is made, they have to be willing to engage."

In Iraq, however, a few countries have indicated that their forces cannot participate in some aspects of the operations, he added.

"That's an issue that NATO has to think through very carefully," the secretary said. "It's kind of like having a basketball team, and they practice and practice and practice for six months. When it comes to game time, one or two say, 'We're not going to play.' Well, that's fair enough. Everyone has a free choice. But you don't have a free choice if you've practiced for all those months. So we're going to have to find a way to manage our way through that."

Discussions of NATO's transformation also will highlight the meeting, Rumsfeld said, especially in terms of the NATO Response Force and the usability and deployability of NATO forces, and the effort to find metrics to do a better job of measuring usability "so that each country can improve its circumstance."

The secretary said the NATO defense ministers also will discuss organizational reform in the alliance's international bureaucracy and committee structure and current NATO operations.

"If you think about it, just a few years ago, the idea that NATO would have operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq would be beyond belief, but it is a fact," he said. "and they will be important topics of conversation. That says a great deal about this institution."

Between his arrival this morning and his late-afternoon meeting with reporters, the secretary visited the USS O'Bannon, a Navy destroyer anchored offshore, and participated in bilateral meetings with his counterparts from Romania and Spain. Afterward, he was scheduled to meet with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and participate in a working dinner. "

Iama

NATO serves several valuable purposes, even though containment of the Soviet Union is no longer relevant.

1. It keeps the US (Canada too) concerned with stability in Europe. Yes, I know there are those (including on this forum) who think this is a bad thing. I believe the history of the 20th century shows it is a good thing. An isolationist USA, that only cares about Europe once a shooting war has started, is bad for the US and bad for Europe too.

2. The security guarantees mean that countries can maintain smaller militaries than they might otherwise feel they need. In the past, this referred mainly to (West) Germany, but it is still relevant today. Consider the vulnerability of the Baltic states to Russian pressure.

3. It provides an ongoing forum for discussion of security issues, even when they are issues between member states. Greece and Turkey is a good example of this.

4. The NATO institutions and exchanges between the member's militaries encourage understanding, and make working together easier (even when the work is done outside of NATO).

5. Common research and standardization encourage international purchases of military equipment and supplies (yes, it is not perfect, but probably better than the alternative). Countries do not need to maintain an arms industry at home just for their own security.

6. Last but not least, there are still unresolved security issues in Europe (former Yugoslavia, for example).

Who is "we" ?

This post has been edited by Der Maresal on February 11, 2005 10:40 pm

yes indeed....what do u mean by we? we romanians, we humans, we sexy strong hairy men?

Hey... UE, and Euro thing are the upper part of the wave of future changes. N.A.T.O. means ... S.U.A., or America ('s interests). In future you may see a more powerfull UE, with a combined military UE power. And, look what can give to us NATO aka US interests - let's be serious... When North Koreea - in present days - can beat South Koreea, and after that to invade the World... Time of Rome like things, are gone...
And maybe is time to stop that USA SF pre-fabricated enemys...
And America umbrella above Europe is not so necessary - now, Germany is an allied country, not an enemy. Russia is weakened now - UK, France, Germany, Benelux (ok, whitout Luxemburg ), Spain, Italy, Scandinavian countryes can beat Russia - that UE military core formed by Occidental part of Europe posses now a buffer zone between Russia and own lands, formed by one of the "we" and our neighbours....

Jeff, i hate that syntethicall terror created by USA. Is my right to think in this way, because is my point of view, given by some things... if i was an american, certainly i was thinking in an opossed way. I don't hate America, or americans, but are some things ... not on my taste..

"We"... in that case, "we" ... are "ROW". How it likes USA to say "Rest Of the World", because in that way is the world divided - USA, and ROW...

Iama

in the way u describe it perhaps we should return to the pre-Westfalian order....

i am a partisan of that u know...

sexy strong hairy one?

Iama

Hundreds of US Nukes Still in Europe


Source: Deutsche Welle German radio


"More than a decade after the end of the cold war, the United States continues to deploy hundreds of nuclear warheads across Europe, according to a report from a respected US research agency.

With the United States applying pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions, the revelation on Thursday that North Korea possesses the bomb and intends to increase its arsenal, and action taken and planned to prevent rogue states obtaining weapons technology, the report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) comes at an embarrassing time for the US and a worrying one for Europe.

The NRDC, a private arms control and environmental group based in Washington, revealed that the estimated figure of around 200 nuclear weapons thought to still be kept on European soil by the United States is in fact more than double that, with the majority of the 480 bombs bunkered at three bases in Germany.

Germany was in the front line of the cold war until the fall of the Berlin Wall precipitated the collapse of the USSR. It was widely believed that in the event of the cold war escalating to "hot," the United States would have sacrificed Germany in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union in a bid to protect the rest of Europe.

Currently, 150 bombs which would have been used in that scenario are still on German soil. During the height of the cold war, the United States had as many as 7,000 nuclear warheads in Europe.

Bombs scattered across Europe

The United States' closest ally, Britain, currently plays host to 110 tactical nuclear missiles at the Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk, the home of American F-15 fighter planes in the UK. This is figure itself is three times as high as previously thought. Elsewhere around Europe, the US has 90 bombs deployed at Incirlik in south-eastern Turkey, 90 in Italy and 20 each in Belgium and the Netherlands, according to the NRDC.

The 100-page report, which was posted on the NRDC's web site on Wednesday, is based on documents obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act, military publications, commercial satellite imagery and other material.

Confusion over deterrent's use

Questions are bound to be raised by concerned Europeans as to why such a large number of weapons of mass destruction are still scattered across Europe when the specter of the Soviet Union no longer exists. While the NRDC speculates that the potential targets for the missiles are likely to be in Russia, Iran and Syria, the official NATO line states that nuclear bombs in Europe are not aimed at any particular country.

While the actual number of missiles still on European soil may come as a surprise to the majority of people living on the continent, the most revealing aspect of the NRDC report is that regarding US policy towards the use of the weapons in time of war.

Non-nuke NATO states have bomb option

While Britain, with its estimated 200 strategic nuclear warheads, and France, with as many as 350, are the continents main nuclear powers and would therefore defend themselves, the American policy regarding use of European-based nuclear weapons in war would allow non-nuclear European NATO members to use US weapons.

In the event of a nuclear conflict, the US would provide as many as 180 bombs which would be dropped by Belgian, German, Italian, Dutch, and Turkish aircraft.

US policy contravenes treaty

According to the NRDC, this policy breaches international law because the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits a nuclear state from transferring nuclear weapons to a non-weapon state, and prohibits a non-nuclear state from receiving such weapons.

The NRDC also claims that the mere presence of the weapons on European soil contradicts the NPT by providing non-nuclear states with weapons protection under a US nuclear umbrella.

"The continuing presence of these weapons irritates relations with Russia, undermines global efforts to dissuade other nations from developing nuclear weapons, and impedes NATO's post-Cold War evolution," the NRDC states. "



Questions Asked About US Nuclear Stockpile in Europe


Source: Radio Netherlands


"As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives in Brussels, a storm is brewing over a report which says nearly 500 nuclear weapons are stored in Europe, including the Netherlands: twice as many as previously estimated.

American military sources put the figure much lower, claiming that around 200 short-range nuclear missiles are on European soil to deter attacks from rogue nations and terrorists.

But ‘US Nuclear Weapons in Europe’ a report written by Hans Kristensen for the Natural Resources Defence Council, an American-based environmental organisation, claims that the US maintains 480 nuclear weapons under strict security in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Turkey and Italy. Mr Kristensen based his research on commercial satellite imagery and declassified documents, he says, and argues that the weapon’s presence is harming worldwide attempts to limit nuclear proliferation.

Some US officals have said there are no plans to reduce the nuclear presence in Europe, admitting that the issue has been causing ‘strain’ among NATO leaders.

Karel Koster, from the Project on European Nuclear Non-Proliferation in the Netherlands doubts that the report’s findings will be raised with Condoleezza Rice, either in Brussels or later this week in Nice, where Dr Rice – and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – will meet NATO chiefs:

“It’s not just the number of nuclear weapons which will not be discussed, it will be the issue of nuclear weapons period, for the simple reason that it is still regarded by most NATO countries as a kind of symbol of ties [with] the United States. Now that these ties appear to be on the mend again, nobody will want to rock the boat.”

However, he adds that there has been tension in the countries hosting the American weapons:

“Because of the obvious contradiction between, on the one hand, telling the rest of the world not to have any nuclear weapons and, on the other hand hanging onto NATO nuclear policy. Because of that obvious contradiction there have been some voices in a number of countries in Europe opposing the continuation of nuclear policy in its present form. The stationing of these nuclear weapons is a pretty controversial issue in some countries, notably Germany. There has been a serious political debate going on there. In the Netherlands far less; one can say that the present Netherlands government does not want any discussion on this whatsoever.”

Mr Koster thinks that Turkey, which supported the war against Iraq but did not allow US planes to take off from its territory, will find itself in a slightly awkward position:

“On the one hand they still want to be part of the NATO alliance and they also regard the Middle East as a zone of great potential danger for them. In that sense at least, part of the Turkish defence establishment wants to hang on to the NATO nuclear weapons as a kind of insurance policy […] On the other hand, there is a clear opposition to American policies in the Middle East, so there is a contradiction there.”

Karel Koster believes the reports findings could cause embarrassment at the upcoming conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) scheduled for May 2005 in New York:

“The question of NATO nuclear policy and NATO nuclear weapons is something that most decidedly most NATO countries will not want on the agenda.”

Yet discussions of the issues raised in the report will be unavoidable, he thinks: “At the NPT review conference there’ll be an obvious contradiction between having the NATO nuclear weapons here, and pushing for non-proliferation. So there will be a fairly big quarrel if this issue is brought up by any non-NATO state, and I expect there will be some states who would want to make an issue out of this.” "


Iama

Maybe. Personally I think we will see more of a common EU security policy in the future (and foreign policy too). But it's not there yet. I know there are some who say it is, and that the only European country not going along is the British, and that is just because they always side with the Americans. But I think the response to the breakup of Yugoslavia shows how there are still signicant differences between the Europeans. It's not as simple as "United Europe" against "USA".

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I believe there are still security threats in the world. Maybe not in the "if we lose this battle our nation will be destroyed" category, but still significant.

I could not agree more! But you saw who won last year's election in the US, so I would expect at least 4 more years of prefabricated enemies.

Of course its not as necessary, but it is still useful. "Protection of Germany, and protection from Germany" was a traditional goal of NATO policy. When Germany feels threatened, it defends itself, and this has historically been dangerous for Europe.

I don't agree that NATO just mindlessly does what the US says. If NATO does not come to a position the members can agree on, it does not act. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Some members sent troops to help the Americans, some stayed out, some opposed US policy very vocally.

Yeah, just what Poland wants... to be a battleground for West European and Russian armies. At least they have had lots of practice in this role.

Seriously, I am not predicting conflict between Russia and the EU. And the potential power of the countries you name is significant. If NATO did not exist, I would not propose to create it. But it does exist, and it has been effective for over 50 years. Why throw it away, in favor of an alliance that has only the beginnings of a unified military command, and that often cannot decide on a common policy?

You're not alone in disliking this side of American policy. Many Americans dislike it too. And I worry that those who support it, don't realize the price the US pays around the world from this "we're the USA, we don't need anybody" image. I am not saying the US does not face real threats... they are not all synthetic. But there are enough real ones, we don't need to create imaginary ones, then use them to justify our actions.

Maybe I am just too optimistic, but I do not think things are that bad. Every continent of the world has many countries that work well with the US. We don't always agree about everything, but that is normal. Some buy Pepsi, but vote different from the US in the UN... some send troops to Afghanistan, but we disagree about software piracy... it's OK.

Oh, and I was not saying I agree with all those reasons to keep NATO. They were just some of the "commonly understood" reasons.

Iamandi, I'll drink to that! But for that Europe would need a plan, a goal or a feeling to fuse it together.
Either a neo-colonial plan, either some kind of European nationalism that would eliminate the dividing nationalisms within (like Hungary - Romania), either a new kind of leftist internationalism. The latter would express itself at this stage through anti-Americanism and aid to third world countries "targeted" by the US.
Personally I'd prefer the first choice, and Europe staying close to the US.
Presently it seems not to be working... but things can change.

Iamandi, I'll drink to that! But for that Europe would need a plan, a goal or a feeling to fuse it together.
Either a neo-colonial plan, either some kind of European nationalism that would eliminate the dividing nationalisms within (like Hungary - Romania), either a new kind of leftist internationalism. The latter would express itself at this stage through anti-Americanism and aid to third world countries "targeted" by the US.
Personally I'd prefer the first choice, and Europe staying close to the US.
Presently it seems not to be working... but things can change.

Imperialist,

I agree with you, that the EU will become a super-power maybe even a uber-power. A United Europe would be economically without unequal. A close relationship with Russia, would give the EU the raw material it needs to feed its industries. However I'am loath to give up Romania's national identity. A EU army is unlikey in the near future.

Thank You

The only two countries I can see with the potential for "uber powers" (whatever that mean) would be China & India. Europe needs 50 more years to create a functional level of political unity and a joint army and don't have the ideological tendency to protect its corporate interests with it's military arm anyway. The current EU-US rift is insane in view of existing global problems as they are the only two magnets of democratic influence in this world. Yet they manage to be as divided as the Arabs nations, no small feat.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 16, 2005 12:48 pm

Chandernagore,

When I said Uber-power, what I was describe "a nation who's status in both military and economic terms is above a so-called super-power"

I did not say when the would became a "Uber-Power"! only that the EU would likey attain that status at point. As China or India being potentially stronger then the EU, especially an with a either a close relationship Russia or that perhaps includes Russia. I do not think that is very likey, while India and China have made some remarkable progess in recent years. They very far behind the EU in terms of economic and humen development. Also a close friendship with Russia will give the all the raw materials that it needs, while China and India will eventaully be forced to import them.

Thank You

Isn't that a bit harsh? There are many areas where the US and the Europeans work well together. I know you are aware of them.

Maybe there are some places the Arab nations work well together, but none come to mind. I thought "opposing Israel" might count as one, but even that's not really true.

And there are other democratic influences, too -- admittedly none as significant as those you mention. I remember when I was teaching some classes on Indian government to high school students, the amazing thing was not that Indian democracy had some problems, but that it existed at all, considering the social divisions and problems.

But I agree that the current EU-US rift is insane, and hurts both sides.

Right. It's easy to forget about India because they are not politicallly as proselytizing as the US & EU are.