Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-19-2003, 10:21 PM   #1 (permalink)
who?
 
phredgreen's Avatar
 
Location: the phoenix metro
Nato repositions itself in a changing world

Quote:
<i>orginally seen here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/3201578.stm</i>

<b>Nato turns to terrorism fight</b>

Nato is repositioning itself for a future as a key force in the "war on terror", according to its US ambassador, Nicholas Burns.
The organisation has been struggling to define its role in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat from which was the basis of its foundation.

But Mr Burns told BBC World Service's The Interview programme that the threat to Nato's members was now global - so the alliance had to be reshaped to respond.

"Nato's primary purpose right now is to defend Europe and North America by going well outside of Europe and America to do that," he said.

"The great threats to Britons, and to French citizens and Americans, certainly come from the juxtaposition of global terrorism with chemical, biological and nuclear suitcase bombs.

"That threat exists. It exists in the Middle East, and it exists in Central Asia."

Purpose

Questions have been asked about Nato's role in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Although the alliance intervened in Kosovo, it did not formally operate in the military campaigns in either Iraq or Afghanistan.


But Mr Burns emphasised the role the organisation was currently playing:
"Nato has just gone into Central Asia to take over the Afghan peacekeeping force, which is a very good thing," he said.

"The great majority of Nato countries have soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

"Nato's purpose is to be on the front lines, to fight the war on terrorism for Europeans, and for Americans and Canadians.

"That's where we've turned the organisation, that's how we've transformed it over the last two years."

In particular, Mr Burns stressed the role the newly-established rapid response force would play.

The force is designed to be able to deploy within days to anywhere in the world if needed, with between 20,000 and 30,000 troops.

Mr Burns refuted suggestions that it would merely be a tool of American foreign policy.

"If there were a terrorist threat to any one of us - European countries or North American countries - the response force could be activated to meet it, but 26 countries will decide that," he said.

"If there were a hostage situation - of course, there have been a lot of them over the last 15-20 years - the response force could be used for that.

"A humanitarian intervention in Africa or the Middle East or Central Asia would also be subject to this. There are a variety of ways to use it, but it's not some kind of unilateral force determined by the United States."

'War machine'

Mr Burns conceded that the divisions between Nato countries in the build-up to the war in Iraq had nearly been the end of the organisation.

But he said the unity had come back between the countries since the crisis, which began with Turkey's request for help, fearing it would be attacked by Iraq.


Mr Burns said that while most countries had been keen to respond, a "minority" - France, Germany and Belgium - had resisted, prompting a major rift within the alliance.
"It was, I think, one of the greatest crises in Nato's history.

"It certainly was a near-death experience, as I and others said at the time.

"Having gone through that experience, I think many countries are now more confirmed that we've got to stick together."

Some US commentators have suggested that Nato's role in combat operations is likely to be massively diminished, however, as the multilateral structure prevents decisions being made quickly.

This, some argue, frustrates those in the White House, who instead will peruse a policy of forming a coalition around their mission.

But Mr Burns said that, though Nato had been left out of the main fighting in Iraq, it would continue as a key element of military campaigns around the world - on behalf of all its members.

"You don't hear [Secretary of State] Colin Powell or [Defence Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld saying Nato is finished as a war-fighting machine," he argued.

"I think it's the American unilateralists - those people largely outside our government - who are arguing that the United States is somehow so superior in military strength that it can somehow afford to go it alone.

"Those people are mistaken."

thus begs the question, is nato still valid? the iron curtain has fallen, there is no longer the need there once was to protect us from the red menace. we have the u.n. we have the many armies of individual nations. do we really need another organization policing our world, or has nato run its course and should be disbanded?
__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine
phredgreen is offline  
Old 10-21-2003, 06:49 AM   #2 (permalink)
Quadrature Amplitude Modulator
 
oberon's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
Well, I don't see the point of NATO nowadays. I think people get along just fine with the UN.

US loyalty to the UN leaves some things to be desired, though.
__________________
"There are finer fish in the sea than have ever been caught." -- Irish proverb
oberon is offline  
Old 10-21-2003, 07:06 AM   #3 (permalink)
Loser
 
The UN is too chaotic and indecisive to play a miltary role other than peacekeeper.
It is best kept as a global political platform.

NATO can be organized to play an aggressive miltary role in defending industrialized nation against terrorist threats.
They have the system in place,
the intelligence network,
the mobile force
and the military oriented administration

This would be an excellent role for NATO to play.

The U.S. and Europe still has enough history and common background to have a common interest in stablizing the world
against those who desire to take down what they see as capitalist judeo-christian entities that they attack.

Let the UN play the good cop
and NATO be the "bad" cop.

One political, the other military.
One passive, the other proactive.

Last edited by rogue49; 10-21-2003 at 07:41 AM..
rogue49 is offline  
 

Tags
changing, nato, repositions, world

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360