Happy 60th Birthday NATO - Time to Go Out of Business?

[bigtree]

As President Barack Obama prepares to attend the 60th anniversary summit of NATO in Strasbourg, France and Kehl, Germany on April 3rd and 4th the question has to be asked among all the hoopla and celebration: Is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization still necessary?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/happy-60th-birthday-nato_b_181734.html

[ddeclue]

1. It's time for it to evolve...not necessarily go out of business.

Alliances are GOOD... soft power and influence are good... brute force and cowboy nonsense are bad.

NATO has been a very useful tool of diplomacy where the U.N. has often failed because of the absolute veto nature of the security council.

NATO served as a pre-cursor to the formation of the European Union. In turn, NATO owes its existence to the alliance formed in WWII by what we commonly refer to as "The Allies".

Had NATO not been useful and shown the importance of unification to the Europeans it is likely there would be no EU today. NATO's role in peacekeeping in the Balkans and putting an end to the genocide there shows that NATO still has an important post Cold War role.

Lest we forget NATO has two members on this side of the Atlantic as well: The U.S. and Canada.

Even though the E.U. has taken over much of the role of NATO in recent years it still serves as a diplomatic bridge across the Atlantic. It also serves as a bridge to the nations of the former Warsaw Pact and Russia when those nations are not likely to be considered for EU membership for some time to come.

Until such time as the United Nations can be modified to become a more effective organization I think NATO will continue to serve an important role.

Some UN reforms that should be considered:

1) Limiting the veto power of the five powers in the Security Council from absolute to overridable.
2) Making it perhaps bi-cameral in the US sense so that population counted for votes in the UN General Assembly.
3) Making the G.A. an electoral body where citizens in each nation got to elect their own representatives rather than having them appointed by their respective gov'ts.

Long Live NATO!

[bigtree]

2. doesn't their expanded and revise role in the Middle East demand a shift

. . . from U.S. and Eurocentric concerns for the organization to become a truly representative WORLD body?

How do you see NATO in the future in relation to dual organizing efforts by nations looking for decision-making outside of the U.S. and European influence, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?

[ddeclue]

3. I think we live in a messy world and you can't just jump straight to some world wide Star Trek like

government based on the existing UN.

I think regional alliances like NATO are the evolutionary path forward.

[bigtree]

4. star trek government?

I don't want that.

I think NATO is has a compromised mandate in the role they're playing in Afghanistan. I think organizations like the SCO are much more relevant for a 'stable' future for Afghanistan and that region than NATO will be (apart from their U.S. dominated military mission there).

[ddeclue]

5. I think that their mission in Afghanistan falls within their existing mandate to defend member

nation states from attacks. Lest you forget, at least three member states have been attacked: The U.S., Spain and England and most members lost citizens in 9/11. These attacks originated from Afghanistan. In no way is this "compromising" their mandate.

Doug D.

[bigtree]

8. they weren't part of the original defense. They were brought in to nation-build

"NATO’s main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country."
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

I think a regional organization of 'states' is better suited to provide for the future needs of the Afghan government. I think NATO is there to try and ensure the U.S. priorities, which are mired in the objectives set by the U.S. - most notably by the president in announcing his Afghan plan - as an offensive against the fugitive 9-11 terror suspects.

My concern is for the effects and consequences of the competing objectives of NATO in this new role. They are fighting an ideology which is represented in the violent acts of individuals, not a nation state like Germany or Japan. Their objectives in Afghanistan are, in many instances, quite apart from those of SCO participants like China and Russia. Iran is a prospective member of SCO and a present observer.

I'm not convinced that the nation-building role NATO has assumed in Afghanistan is proper or wise. Neither do many of the allies you represent as so invested in the mission there, judging by their recalcitrance in extending their own commitment of troops.

[New Dawn]

6. NATO should be dissolved immediately.

And all 800+ overseas US military bases should be closed down. End the empire.

[ddeclue]

7. Silly silly silly... thanks for stopping by...

Iraq needs to be shut down and our bases in Europe are there at the invitation of the host government and are much smaller than they were during the Cold War. NOT an empire.

The only place there is a problem with "empire" is Iraq.

Doug D.

[New Dawn]

9. Iraq's puppet regime makes the same claim.

"The invitation of the host government" -- Those countries did not hold referendums on being permanently occupied by US military bases. European politicians are endlessly coerced by the US government into maintaining the status-quo. Finally, the US definitely does have an empire. Read William Blum's http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526/">Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II or any of Chalmers Johnson's books. They are authorities on this subject.