Romania's Decision to enter NATO

[Chandernagore]

Hello, Victor. At last ! Nice to see you at the head of the cavalry. The savages have fled toward El Paso…

Did you see all those arrows ? How was I supposed to react ?

[dead-cat]

dear thread,

until 2 days ago, you were intresting and it really was worthwhile reading you.
then somebody had to become personal.

RIP

[Indrid]

i had the same problem on another thread. :cry:

[Chandernagore]

BBC News 11/25/03 :

Blair and Chirac defend EU force

President Chirac was given a guard of honour at the Foreign Office
Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac have insisted plans for Europe to have its own military capability will not undermine Nato.

Well, they were not going to say it flatly but... you can have little doubt about which organization is accelerating and which one is going to loose speed in the long run.

[mabadesc]

You may be right, who knows?

I wouldn't count too much on the UK militarily if I were a EU member, however. The UK has traditionally been an extraordinarily strong US/NATO ally. I'm not sure it will choose the EU over NATO, regardless of the UK political party in control at that time. The alliance has transcended administrations both on the American as well as the British side.

In the same camp, but to a much lesser degree, and dependent on their current governments are Italy (Berlusconi) and Spain (Aznar).

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I wouldn't count too much on the UK militarily if I were a EU member, however.

Oh but UK itself is a long time EU member :-)

QUOTE

The UK has traditionally been an extraordinarily strong US/NATO ally. I'm not sure it will choose the EU over NATO, regardless of the UK political party in control at that time.  The alliance has transcended administrations both on the American as well as the British side.

Well there is not necessarily any contradiction. they can be both. But I fear that Bush policies have driven an irrevocable wedge in the English public opinion over the special relationship like there never was before. The hearts and minds are in very bad shape.

That said I also think that history, language will always strongly influence the countries mutual relations.

[Chandernagore]

From the Washington Post

In his opening address, Robertson appealed for greater efforts to make alliance forces more "usable" against terrorism and other 21st-century threats. To that end, the alliance declared operational its first battalion of 500 to 700 troops dedicated to defending NATO forces against nuclear, biological or chemical attacks.

The ministers also agreed to cut NATOs peacekeeping force in Bosnia from 12,500 to 7,000, preparing the way for a likely transfer of control next year to a European Union force of soldiers and police.

As the meeting began, news of a plan by Britain, Germany and France to enhance the EU's ability to mount its own military operations threatened to trigger a new rift with the United States. Senior officials from the three European nations were widely reported to have reached agreement last week to give the EU its own military planning cell and insert a provision of mutual defense into the EU's first constitution, widely expected to be adopted next week.

U.S. officials complained privately that the moves violated terms of an accord signed by NATO and the EU last March, portraying the initiatives as a French-inspired drive to subvert NATO and curb U.S. influence.


A drive to subvert and curb US influence ? No. A drive to create it's own, yes. I wonder if the US would agree to curb it's own army and accept to rely entirely on NATO for foreign policy ?

[mabadesc]

Without placing blame on either side, I told you there would be disagreements on the NATO/EU military issue.
I think it's a complex issue that's going to be tough to solve.
What do you think, Chander?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Without placing blame on either side, I told you there would be disagreements on the NATO/EU military issue. I think it's a complex issue that's going to be tough to solve. What do you think, Chander?

Well, Mabadesc there are two sides to the cake.

The first side is that we owe NATO and US much for garanteeing Western Europe security during the cold war (which fortunately remained cold). While this emotional factor rarely surface in political talks, we do not and we cannot forget. The organization exists and is a powerfull enough alliance that it might still remain a important link between US & EU for common objectives.

On the other hand it's more difficult to exert influence and support your policies without your own independant military structure. Perhaps it's just about time that we get off the US tit and start 1. caring for our own security 2. acquire the ability to project power to support EU interests independently from the US led alliance. This is just real politik and not something which should surprise Americans who already work within that frame since a long time :wink:

Much will depend on diplomatic maneuvering in the following years.

[Chandernagore]

Every once in a while the "question" surges forward...

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or Nato really for?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3844837.stm

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

What is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or Nato really for?

Well, up until the 90's, it WAS for saving your collective butts (i.e., Western Europe) from the expansionist desires of the Soviet Union. You know, the Soviet doctrine which stated that communism must be enforced globally through either violent or peaceful means (preferably violent).

As to what purpose Nato serves NOW, in the present, that's a tough question. It is a military alliance from which both America and Western Europe could benefit (now part of Eastern Europe too) but I suppose it's natural for some Western Europeans to think (or say outloud): Great, we needed the Americans for 50 years to protect us from the Soviets, but now the threat doesn't exist anymore, so Get Out! and leave us alone, we don't need you.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that ends up being their reaction.

[Chandernagore]

Well, I think you're overreacting. The question was genuine. I'm surprised that the organization's goals were not redefined with the end of the cold war. So that now we just have some hazy home security role without any indication about what NATO may or may not do outside of it's original frame.

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

Well, I think you're overreacting. The question was genuine.

Perhaps I did overreact a bit.

Since your question is genuine, I have to admit that NATO's role must be redefined due to the Cold War having ended. But I'm not up to speed on exactly what they've done (if anything) to redirect the goals of the organization.

[Chandernagore]

Not much has been done yet, I fear

But obviously a purely territorial defense role is no longer warranted by the international situation. Is NATO on the way to become a more active intervention force in support of... er... well... democracy and market economy ? Problem is that NATO, while far more efficient than UN, has not any legitimacy outside the western world. So, they can only send Green Berets

Nato to train Iraqi armed forces

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3846415.stm

[Imperialist]

The result of the government's stuborness:

http://www.adevarulonline.ro/index.jsp?pag...ticle_id=157247

Only 1,85% of GDP can be allocated to the army, out of the 2,38% promised until 2008.