# Global NATO?



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2006)

Here is an interesting article from the current (Sep/Oct 06) issue of _Foreign Affairs_.  It is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faessay85509/ivo-daalder-james-goldgeier/global-nato.html 



> Global NATO
> By *Ivo Daalder* and *James Goldgeier*
> 
> From _Foreign Affairs_, September/October 2006
> ...



I agree with the main idea:

•	Establish new rules to allow NATO to have an _*explicit*_ global manadate and concomitant global membership;

•	Establish new rules for membership to allow non Euro-American members AND (unstated by Daalder and Goldgeier but important, in my opinion) to require *all* members, including current ones, to conform to certain core values – democracy, rule of law, etc or risk expulsion; and

•	Enlarge NATO to include Australia,  Finland,  Japan,  New Zealand, and South Korea, for a start.

It might be highly desirable to _harmonize_ NATO  with the OECD  - especially with a view to helping NATO members make themselves eligible for OECD membership.  (See: http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1958091_1_1_1_1,00.html for the _obligations of membership_ which are different from NATO’s current (and in need of revision) membership obligations which can be found at: http://www.nato.int/issues/faq/index.html#A3 )

This will not be easy; the recent enlargement of NATO was not without difficulty.  The UK and US, for example, have quite different views on NATO enlargement than France (which wants to have a much more _independent_ (of the USA) European alliance system, which would enhance France’s _clout_).  Germany’s views are different still: it wants to recreate a German led _Mitteleurope_, free of too much French and Russian influence.

Still and all: the UN is a failed organization at anything resembling its _raison d’être_: *to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war*.   The world community needs an honest, efficient, effective peacemaker and it has been increasingly willing to _contract_ that job out to NATO.  An enlarged, global NATO can only inspire more confidence in much of the world community.

Edit: format


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2006)

Are not Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand, along with several other nations, already members of SEATO?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2006)

SEATO was dissovled in the '70s.

Canada was never a member.


----------



## GAP (27 Aug 2006)

I can see Europe going it's own way more and more in the next 20 years. The group block amalgamations going on are becoming stronger and stronger. The US is becoming more protectionist, while still trying to dominate NATO, etc. and the other countries are resisting by not answering their doorbell. 

my 1.5 cents


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Aug 2006)

It strikes me that any expansion will serve to increase the relative weight and importance of the Anglosphere - and perhaps that is part of the underlying reasoning?  I mean, there are NATO members, and then there are NATO members.  Four and five eyes is often a limiting factor right now.


----------



## McG (27 Aug 2006)

"Global NATO" sounds like "League of Nations" to me.

I think ABCA will be more & more relevant in the future (I'm really just be repeating PPCLI Guy in other words).


----------



## Red 6 (27 Aug 2006)

I think the US is trying desperately to keep NATO alive and it's going to be a larger and larger problem. The only thing that's saving NATO is the lack of a credible European-based military alliance. Unless a serious emerging threat pops up within NATO's sphere of responsibility, (ex. Russia) it's slowly heading the way of the Dodo bird. Our current operations in Iraq show the limit of what is for all intents unilateral action. Even though we're the biggest kid on the block, we still need to build true coalitions to fight and manage major combat operations over a prolonged period.

I've recently been reading an interesting book called "To Rule The Waves." It's the story of the Royal Navy and has many powerful little insights about global deterrence. ABCA as a future alliance base would offer some interesting possibilities.


----------



## Dale Denton (27 Aug 2006)

A Global NATO sounds good, and I don't mean to sound stupid, but wouldn't they have to change the name? Global Treaty Organisation? Also, wouldn't the adding of more member escalate other conflicts or lead to new ones? I'm not sure what would happen with the Venezuela arms buildup and the adding of Brazil. Anyways, it sounds like a great idea, but very tricky.

Added: I guess they're thinking of adding more nations into NATO because of some sort of future SCO threat, because its expanding more on the military cooperation part of it to include (and exclude other NATO hopefulls) India, Pakistan, and Belarus.

Edited:Spelling


----------



## geo (28 Aug 2006)

For the time being, all I can say is........... thank god they aren't under the direct control of the UN. Recipe for failure.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> ABCA as a future alliance base would offer some interesting possibilities.



Like I said, Global NATO is simply the cloak within which the Anglosphere is garnered...

Dave


----------



## boondocksaint (28 Aug 2006)

saw lots of NATO on KAF.....at the PX....the DFAC.....the gym....the PX

not so much outside the wire, yanks-brits, canucks


----------



## warspite (29 Aug 2006)

the U.N hasnt done it's job and is wallowing under its obligations, if someone else has to pick up the torch and carry on then so be it, and if that someone can actually do that and succeed, then go at er and get r done


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

Warspite....
using Lebanon as an example; 
A problem with sticking your proverbial nose between two (or more) beligerents is that you had better be invited to do just that in the 1st place if you want to get off on the right foot... - else you become part of the problem... 

Though the UN pachyderm wallows at an allarmingly slow speed,  "it" is the agency that has been invited to intervene by both parties.  At present NATO is not trusted by the majority of arab countries with an (ahem) "Vested interests" in the region...

The way things are right now, I for one am happy our fearless leaders haven't volunteered us into the breach once again.... (for now).


----------



## warspite (29 Aug 2006)

I apologize sincerely, you are right and i will try to avoid any further comments not thought out thoroughly


----------



## Red 6 (29 Aug 2006)

There is so much brewing in this business in Lebanon. If/when Al Qaida makes its presence felt, it could cause a ripple-down affect that will further destabilize the area. (Exactly what OBL and his cronies want anyway.) This is just me, but my thought is the UN is going to set their bar for success pretty low. We used to call this "sets low standards and fails to achieve them." It's a shame really, since the peacekeepers are going to be stuck in what could quickly turn into an untenable position if they themselves become the target of terror attacks. We'll just have to wait and see, I suppose.


----------



## geo (29 Aug 2006)

As stated above, thank god our fearless leaders have not committed us to the cause.
Hezbolah with their bunkers under & around UNIFIL OPs make their situation untenable.  Have not seen the rules of engagement imposed on them but, if an Italian or FFL type observes Hezbolah doing dirty work.... I do not believe he has the authority to do anything about it.... let alone report it.   Rwanda & BH all over again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2006)

I am copying this (originally posted by tomahawk6 in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49592.0.html ) (with my *emphasis* added) in order to keep this thread up to date.

http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=102761 



> NATO wants Indian troops to operate in Afghanistan
> 
> BRUSSELS: NATO - the US led western military alliance, wants Indian troops for its missions in volatile regions like Afghanistan and Kosovo, according to newspaper reports.
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (25 Sep 2006)

I'm sure the Pakistanis will just be thrilled.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Pakistanis will just be thrilled.



_Nota bene_: the item came from a Pakistani news agency.

You bet they're concerned!


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2006)

This sounds like it may just be hinting at expanding the "partnership for peace" concept to more non-NATO nations and with a broader scope to include more global stability/security issues.


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2006)

IMHO, the only way that Pakistan will possibly accept the presence of Indian troops in Afghanistan would be to have the Indian troops in northern Afghanistan well away from the Pakistani border.... freeing up German, French, Dutch, Italian troops?... BUT even tehre, there would be the matter of alleged influencing of ISAF behind Pakistan`s back.... therefore, it ain't going to happen .... but it could be a bargaining chip to force Pakistan to close off their border to Taliban - as has been promissed umpteen times.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> This sounds like it may just be hinting at expanding the "partnership for peace" concept to more non-NATO nations and with a broader scope to include more global stability/security issues.



I think that’s the case in some capitals: especially London and Canberra.

See PPCLI Guy’s comments in this thread, dated: 2006-08-27.

_*My*_ _Anglosphere_ includes America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore as its charter members with India, certainly, probably Fiji and Malaysia, and possibly Pakistan and South Africa as _cadet_ members.

I believe that any effective _Anglosphere_ must pay attention to _socio-political optics_ and, therefore, it cannot be a white men’s club.  Equally, however, it must be a _club_ with stiff entry requirements and democracy – real democracy – has to be at the top of the list.  

Singapore is a functioning _*conservative*_ democracy; free votes and the rule of law prevail – to, at least, the same degree as free votes and the rule of law prevail in North America.  It is a conservative democracy because, with a population which is 85% Chinese, it reflects an extremely conservative society.  Liberal democracy is not the only acceptable _brand_.  India is a real democracy, too – although the constitution has been put aside, in the ‘70s which _might_ be far enough in the past to allow India to qualify as a full member.

Fiji and Malaysia have had more, too recent brushes with undemocratic governments; Pakistan is a military dictatorship and South Africa appears, to me, from afar to be teetering on the brink of undemocratic _reform_.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2006)

I wonder if this announcement of India's involvement in Afghanistan might not have been pending for some time and held in abeyance by the perceived need to keep Pakistan "on side".   With Pakistan explicitly going off and making peace deals with Mullah Omar, the tribes and Al Qaeda, as well as still protecting A.Q. Khan maybe there has been a shift in priorities.  

It would be interesting to see the effect of a couple of Indian Divisions on Pakistan's NW Frontier.   Couple that with a nod and a wink to the Indians about clearing out Islamic militants in Kashmir and Musharaf would have a really interesting time of it.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> *.... but it could be a bargaining chip to force Pakistan to close off their border to Taliban*.


Too funny. 

On Sept 5th, the Pakistan government signed a treaty that effectively gives Taliban and al-Qaeda control of the north-west frontier bordering Afghanistan - - sharia law is now in force. (Google "Waziristan Accord")  

Further showing their support for the war on terror  : , they also released several dozen terrorists from prison on the 15th, returning them to the border region, where they are likely rejoining the fight in A'stan.

I doubt if Pakistan will be an actively useful ally any time soon.


----------



## Echo9 (25 Sep 2006)

An expanded NATO will prove to be its death.  The problem with any alliance is that as it grows in membership, there becomes less of a shared central purpose and fewer shared understandings.  the precise reason for the ineffectiveness of the UN is that it represents the cacophony of the world, where there are no shared understandings.  It cannot do anything other than the status quo for the precise reason that different power blocs do not agree on anything other than status quo (and even then not so much).  This was hugely valuable during the cold war, where stasis prevented the world from being blown up, however, it is not the natural way of things.

the underlying problem with an expanded NATO is one of understanding:
1.  France/ Germany view NATO as the precursor of a pan-european integrated military force, to accompany the political/ economic integration of the EU.
2.  The US sees NATO as being its "extended team".

The two notions are opposed, in that increasingly, the US "extended team" comes from nations that are either at the periphery of NATO (Britain, Poland, Romania), or outside of it completely (Australia).


the idea of a new alliance based on the Anglosphere is an enticing one- you do get the advantage of more of the baseline shared understandings of culture across its nations.  It does not need to be geographically based, which NATO will continue to be for the reasons highlighted above.  It has the potential of integrating the next superpower (India) early on in its development.

Most importantly, it has the benefit of sharing a perception of the threats of the next century- islamofascism and China.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Sep 2006)

Echo9 said:
			
		

> An expanded NATO will prove to be its death.


First, some terminology clarification (mostly for the fly shit & pepper crowd, feel free to skim down to the next paragraph   ). 
It's generally accepted that an "alliance" is a formal agreement amongst like-thinking nations. A "coalition" on the other hand is an implied military partnership with a common, but limited, scope. A "regional partner" is an even more loose arrangement, with formal or informal agreements very limited in scope/time/span. NATO is an alliance; ABCA (and NZ officially now, but the t-shirt makers are still struggling with a suitable acronym) is a coalition; the article cited above indicates that India may be considered a regional partner for the Afghanistan mission: "Indian troops would be part of a _wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states_."

Now, to concur with Echo9, I don't see NATO expanding any time soon. They're still coming to grips with the last round of former-WP draft choices, and it's become obvious that this new NATO is even _more_ unwieldy than the 16 nations. Whenever doctrinal or procedural issues come up, one hears increasingly, "what's ABCA doing?" Then a quorum will return to Brussels and say, "I think we should do _this_" (which just happens to coincide with ABCA's direction....France will disagree....the kids will argue some more.....but that's a different thread)


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2006)

I agree with Echo-9..Europe is becoming more and more insular to the point it is impacting on NATO. 

The anglosphere alliance is probably going to evolve out of shared conflicts/interests. I would dare say it is already here in everything but formal organization.


----------

