NATO outdated

[ORAC]

Independent: Nato is outdated, says Schröder
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
14 February 2005

Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, has soured carefully choreographed efforts to heal transatlantic wounds by calling for a drastic overhaul of Nato and a bigger voice for Europe, just as George Bush prepares to visit Brussels.

Mr Schröder released a speech saying that Nato risked becoming outdated and was "no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and co-ordinate strategies". The text proposed setting up a commission to propose improvements by the start of next year, and said "dialogue between the EU and the US neither reflects Europe's growing weight nor corresponds with new requirements of trans-atlantic co-operation".

The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has said: "Nato has a great deal of energy and vitality. I believe they are undertaking the kinds of reforms to bring the institution into the 21st century. The place to discuss transatlantic issues clearly is Nato."

[Cambridge Crash]

Clearly Herr Schroder hasn't participated in the long discussions over NATO trransformation in to being a security, rather than a defensive, alliance. Who would have thought - even 5 years ago - that German troops would be serving in Afghanistan - a stone's throw away from China? Or German FPBs on CT patrols in the STROG? Moreover, the NATO principle of State Equality means that voting is heavily weighted in the favour of the European side of the ditch.

Possibly he has been quoted out of context, after all, we accuse the media of mis-representing the Services.

[JessTheDog]

It sounds more like a dig at the UK, US, Spain and others.

[Impiger]

What Don Rummy actually said was: 'this is a bit like Wagner - sounds worse than it really is'

Schroeder's speech was delivered by the German Defence Minister (because Schroeder was indisposed) at a security conference in Munich. The Def Min was clearly uncomfortable with the words.

German government have been back peddaling ever since saying this was a statement of fact/reality not their view on what NATO should be - personally I think the cheese eating surrender monkies put them up to it!

[Cambridge Crash]

Presumably this is the annual defence ministers free-thinking bean-fest im Deutchland? Designed to compliment the World Economic Forum in Davros by allowing alternative security issues to be discussed, it rarely features in open reporting. It is nothing more than self-congratulatory capitalist clap-trap (like Davros).

CC

[FJJP]

Cambridge Crash - so capitalist NATO should be wound up then, removing the deterent to your communist friends, ready for the time their power and ambition of world domination is ressurrected?

[pr00ne]

Er, What "communist friends" would they be that we are 'deterring' then?

Of course NATO is capitalist, we live in a capitalist market economy after all and it is the structure we put in place to ensure we remained that way. While the threat may have gone I do not believe that NATO is redundant, it has a different set of threats to face now and has more of a place as a European-North American security forum than straight forward territorial defence.

REDs under the bed eh FJJP?

[Impiger]

CC

The conference is called Vehrkunde. It is annual. It is not Defence Ministers - although some do go. It is supposedly free thinking - but Ministers or officials of any persuasion can't be that in a reported forum. It has c@ckall to do with or in common with Davros.

[Cambridge Crash]

We no longer live in a binary world of Capitalism and Communism - why does responders still hark back to the bad old days and assume that the opposite of Capitalism is Communism? What about progressive social democracy as a pragmatic model - as practicedby Sweden or Finland (see Saturday's Torygraph for an interesting article)

[pr00ne]

CambridgeCrash,

Sweden and Finland are both Capitalist market economies, the only difference between them and the UK is the amount of tax that is deemed acceptable, they do not represent an alternative or a third or middle way.
They are facing huge problems over funding their social programmes, as are the Germans, as their populations age and live longer.

[FJJP]

Not so long ago street interviews in Moscow revealed that many people were hankering after the 'good old days' of Communist rule, where they were much better off with their State-run lives. Freedom and Capitalism, they had found, did not put food in their bellies.

Many, too, expressed dismay at the loss of National 'prestige'. There were a number of politicians who started making noises towards the restoration of the old Communist-style rule - with all the trappings of a world class military power.

No, I don't expect the Communist Block to be resurrected in the form that it enjoyed at the height of the Cold War. However, who knows what could happen if the hawks gained control of Russia; it could be that treaties of co-operation evolve amongst many of the old parts of the Soviet Union - who knows.

It would be a mistake to write off the old Communist world as totally dead in the water.

That said, maybe the sarcasm was a touch too subtle...

[pr00ne]

FJJP,

They may well hanker for what some old folk perceive as the good old days but NOONE really desires a return to a repressive dictatorship. Do they REALLY long for that old atmosphere of fear, knocks on the door at the dead of night, relatives being dragged off and “disappeared” for dissent or expressing free will, imprisonment within your own country, economic depravation and being ruled by a privileged elite in the name of “the dictatorship of the people.”
A decade or two of exposure to the consumer culture of the free world will ensure those days never return.

However, while not expecting ever to see a communist return in Russia your urge for caution is not entirely displaced. We forget at our peril the hundreds of years prior to November 1917 that have imbued Russia with an autocratic expansionist history.
I’m sure Estonia and Lithuania didn’t call on NATO Air Defence cover just for fun.
I still think embracing them in a wider Europe is the best way to ensure peace rather than confronting them, they are still a nuclear super power even if the rest of their economy renders them a virtual third world nuclear super power. I certainly wouldn’t go ditching Trident just yet.

[Razor61]

It sounds more like a dig at the UK, US, Spain and others

Nothing new there then is there??

[16 blades]

who knows what could happen if the hawks gained control of Russia

They already have. Putin is effectively a dictator, and the Dumas is little more than a rubber-stamping institution. Directors of large companies not run by the former KGB and the Russian Mafia have been hounded, arrested on trumped up charges, even 'disappeared', and the businesses taken back under state control. The State has also taken back ownership of the vast majority, if not all, of the media. And they are still exerting influence and pressure on the former bloc states (Ukraine elections and poisoned opposition leaders, anyone??).

Crash, 'progressive socialism' is simply a product of the so-called 'third way', which is largely identical to old-school socialism, except hidden behind a barrage of media control, lies, spin an bullsh1t. Sound familiar?

Schroeder has revealed his true colours here - it is interesting to note that the German govt is trying to rapidly back-pedal on his speech. The only 'increased weight' that Europe has is the ever-increasing burden of its disastrous socio-economic policy, and the 'weight' of the masses of unemployed in the euro-zone.

With Neo-Nazi-ism on the rise, and Russia's return to the 'old ways', as well as the current global situation, I would say NATO is now more relevant than ever.

16B

[bowly]

Sounds to me like there's a few people on ICSC at the moment. Need info for an essay perchance?!

[Bunker Mentality]

The Germans and French have a lot to gain from belittling NATO because a weakened NATO gives credence to the Euro-enthusiasts' claims that it was the Common Market/EU who assured peace in Europe (north of the Balkans) since WW2.

Of course, it was nothing of the kind - NATO provided the safe environment in which Western European nations could learn to trust each other and, where necessary, grow into properly functioning democracies. They could then start to remove trade barriers and reduce protectionism. The EU, militarily, is a paper tiger, and a particularly damp one at that! Concerns about the way in which Russia and its allies might move in the future are well justified, in my opinion.

So, as long as a potential threat remains, NATO must remain in being. But it's becoming increasingly hard to sell that to our people when there's no obvious bogey man to point at.

[FJJP]

Bunker Mentality is accurate in his assessment that the Franco-German axis is trying to weaken NATO in favour of the Euro-enthusiast. Germany is increasingly flexing its muscles on the international military stage, more and more trying to shake off the post war perceptions and restrictions. It is becoming more nationalistic along French lines. I also believe that Germany is allowing itself to be dragged along by the French in their anti-American agenda.

When France withdrew from NATO and kicked out the NATO HQ from Fornbeau, the cut should have been clean. But no, NATO got a fright and was scared that they would have no input into French future intentions [considering also that they were a nuclear power]. Hence we have the outrageous situation where all NATO documents are dual language [French/English] and NATO-OTAN is plastered all over the NATO AWACS aircraft.

The problem is, that as NATO is sabotaged by the new alignment and the increasing moves towards a Euro Army, leaves the joint politico-military situation in a confused state. Confusion = weakness, a weakness we should not tolerate given the international uncertainty that exists today.

[The Swinging Monkey]

The fact is NATO DOES NOT WORK.........
I flew NATA AWACS during GW1, and I can tell you, it was the closest I ever came to being killed in an aircraft! Not by enemy action, but from the pathetic bickering that goes on throughout the whole aircraft, front to back.

During Bosnia, only certain elements of NATO could/would participate and only on certain days!
Things got even worse during Kosova, and where the hell were NATO during Afghanistan and GW2??

Sorry Chaps, NATO (AWACS at least) is a bl00dy joke! Its an excuse for a 'air power'

Sorry, switches back to safe and I'm lying down again!!

Kind regards to all
TSM

[Cambridge Crash]

Presumably you mean Kosovo (NATO does not take action against a legal persona)? In what respect? Converstion of continental armies from territorial defence to exped ops and CRC (which has required changes to Constitutions, amongst other things)? Who else was going to stop the depredations of Milosovec? (Read Britain's Unfinest Hour by Brendan Simms - chilling). Moreover, if it wasn't for the rapid intervention in mid 2001 by NATO in FYROM (albeit led by the UK) on OP AMBER FOX, FYROM would (imi) would have inexorably tumbled into internecine strife.

12 Sep 2001 Art V was invoked by the NAC; OP EAGLE ASSIST was launched and quietly, but very effectively, OP ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR got underway. The latter operation is on-going and has been an extemely effective political-military tool of regional engagment (if one likes that sort of thing!) and the mission has been expanded. As you are no doubt aware, NATO offered assistance in re Afghanistan immediately after 11 Sep 01; it was stoutly rejected by the neocon administration in Washington. However, NATO has persisted, indeed the mandate has been extended to include Kabul and 2 Provincial Reconstruction Teams. By the way, a total of 35 NNTCNs have participated in Balkans, Med and Afghan ops; unparalleled security cooperation, which would have been unlikely if it was simply a coalition lead by a capitalist hegemon.

[16 blades]

Read Britain's Unfinest Hour by Brendan Simms

Wow, another lefty nutcase! This book is not so much a historical account as a rabid, anti-Tory rant. You really are quite narrowly selective about what you read, Crash.

...and he's a lecturer at Cambridge!

...it's not you, by any chance, is it?

16B

[Cambridge Crash]

If only I was Dr Brendan Simms. A fine Fellow of Peterhouse, graduate of TCD, purveyor of fine champagne and an all-round good chap. He is hardly a leftie; indeed he is an affable friend of the Services. He is a structuralist and a specialist in Cold War politics.

16 Blades. My reading is wide, extremely wide. Graves to Churchill, Plato to Halper. Perl to Todorev. I also have my Eagle annuals - fine stories of Gerry being biffed! A couple of Commando comics are also lurking...along with Thompson's classic guides on COIN ops. My last uniformed job required me to brief a senior diplomat on a plethora of subjects - and my library expanded accordingly. At least I have time to read and critically evaluate non-orthodox material now (including a copy of AP3000 I managed to obtrain on Ebay).

CC

[SpotterFC]

Sadly I too have worked within NATO, and I have to say the bickering doesn't just go on on the AWACS. It contributes to the almost paralysing inertia inherent in an organization requiring concensus for decision making when that concensus has to include both Greece and Turkey (who tend to be the main problem but are by no means the only nations with hidden agendas - the UK is as bad as any). Wonder why the EU wants to get rid of concensus - apart from to screw the UK?

This is also coupled to the NATO Civilian structure - akin to our Civil Service. Job-for-life was invented for these people and they fight change like a drowning man clinging to a life-raft. Tax-exempt and diplomatic discount-tastic, one can hardly blame them but you wouldn't believe the scams some got away with, with only a slapped wrist for punishment (fraudulently obtained tax-free champagne for the local brothel anyone?). Also amazing how English is the de-facto language at SHAPE, but the top civilian jobs have to be specified as requiring either English or French language ability.....(no I wasn't turned down for a job before you ask)

The concept of NATO is not outdated - but the structure and sheer gargantuan burocracy (sp?) certainly are IMHO (they're building (we're all paying for.....) ANOTHER bl00dy HQ building in Brussels - backhander-tastic!).

At the end of the NATO working day, if you were as far forward as you were at the start of the day, and hadn't gone backwards, you had acheived something!

TSM - have you sacked Carruthers?

[16 blades]

It appears, unfortunately, that NATO has become far too much like the EU. Time for the UK to cut both loose, perhaps, and maintain both military and political alliances with the US?

Crash, you are obviously much more well-read than I! Alot of the sources you quote, however, turn out to be anti-capitalist, anti-Tory, anti-Bush rants rather than objective analyses. Just an observation, but it leaves one with a poor impression of your breadth of outlook, which is obviously not the case!

16B

[Cambridge Crash]

16 Blades

Yes I do read widely; I am now paid to read, think and write. A Bitch aint it? By the way, could I suggest some of the other writings of the supposed lefty Brendan Simms: 'The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian high politics, foreign policy and the crisis in the Executive 1797-1806'. Ideal for a high level transit.

Could I suggest Halper and Clarke: 'America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order' CUP 2004. A measured, 'rational centre' critique of the Bush administration, which targets institutional failure. It is also critical of the binary view many have of the world (ie anti-Bush = anti-capitalist or good muslim/bad muslim - see Mamdani's recent book of the same name for a review of the origins of post-Cold War terrorism). Neither Stefan Halper nor Jonathon Clarke could be described as being even remotely left-wing (Stefan Halper was a political staffer in the Reagan White House before he broke into academia, yes Magdalen, Cantab), yet both are critical of the neo-conservative trend that is pervading the US (and parts of the parliamentary Labour Party).

You suggest that the UK should break its treaty obligations with Europe? Abandon the North Atlantic Treaty & Treaty of Rome? Allow the possible development of a Franco-German political alliance in Europe? What would the Kremlin make of that? What about the recently-admitted Baltic states (which, inter alia, the UK is providing AD for). Perhaps you feel that we can turn back the inexorable (and, on many occasions punitive) nature of globalisation - a process that commenced many, many years ago - and not in 1989, which is a date many ill-informed observers seem to use.

It is important to consider how NATO is viewed through other lenses (Ooooo! Look! Social science term...burn him, I say!). If you are in a CEE state, NATO represents a real, tangible bulwark against Russian hegemony. If you are in Romania, and have an unstable Ukraine on your border, who'ya gonna call? I accept that the Maghreb can't distinguish between NATO and the EU, apart from one or two players who actively assist NATO Ops. Germany is still severly constrained by the US/UK/FR imposed constitution (vide the angst about employing troops in the Balkans, and their inability to carry out CRC).

Yes, go ahead, break with Europe; will the US give a damn? Will it increase UK 'independence', led by Robert Kilroy-Silk?

CC

The clue is in the name

[M609]

Do we really want to polarize the world even more, and dismatle the relativly stable structure in NATO? No organization of that size is going to work without (major) problems, but is the alternative really better?

If you want to cut all ties with europe, and crawl under the wings of the cowboys, the ones complaining about to many deployments abroad, might get even more of them.


Rgds, M609 (I'm leaving for Siauliai Lithuania to join the nato QRA det. today actually.)

[The Swinging Monkey]

Cambridge Crash

I wish I hadn't posted here!!!!
Whatever it is you're on, I should knock if off, 'cos its pickling yer brain old chum!

Spotter FC
No I havn't sacked him (yet!) but I have let the old boy go on some damned fool-arsed 'reunion of service butlers' convention somewhere or other! I hope he will be back soon because after CC's comments I'm in desparate need of a very, very large drop of grouse!

Kind regards
TSM

[Bunker Mentality]

TSM and Spotter,
Sorry to disagree, chaps, but I think our continued membership of NATO is essential. It's true that membership is expensive and that the pork-barrel politics is infuriating, but it's the only credible game in town as far as providing a counter to the possible recrudecence of a threat from the East is concerned.

Militarily, the EU is all mouth, and will remain so until the richer nations are prepared to put their hands deeper into their pockets. And that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

I've done 2 NATO tours - one as an exchange officer and one at SHAPE. At the worker level, in my experience, NATO functions extremely well, until national politics come into play - and that's a feature of any alliance. If you want allies - and I believe the UK needs more than just the USA - then political interference is something you just have to put up with.

So, how are we going to get all those overseas posts re-established ? :)

[SpotterFC]

BM

As I said - the concept is fine. The implementation, or rather the behemoth it has evolved into (Sub-committee on the Challenges of Modern Life anyone? -I AM NOT JOKING!!!) is not.

Spotter

[DuckDodgers]

Well ARRC is off to Afghanistan in Feb next yeat to combine the ISAF and OEF missions under a single command structure.

[Bunker Mentality]

Spotter,
Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. Fundamentally, we agree, I think - THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT! My point is, the bo!!ocks that goes with the huge alliance is a price worth paying.

I can't think, offhand, of any international organisation that doesn't have some bo!!ocks going on. You just can't stop the politicoes showboating to their political constituencies, to$$ers that they are. Sadly, since we belong to an organisation that is subject to political control, we get dragged into it from time to time.

Fact of life, I'm afraid, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[The Swinging Monkey]

BM,
I am genuingly not convinced that our continued membership is ESSENTIAL.
Why is it? NATO will function in its own perculiar way whether the Brits are in or not. Likewise, the Brits will do their own thing, with or without NATO.........remember the Falklands?
Op Veritas?
GW2?
Where were NATO then? Nowhere to be seen, thank you very much. And what about all that rubbish in the alliance about 'an attack on one is an attack on all???...................... utter tosh!

I hate to disagree, but NATO has little credability left, especially with anyone who has had the misfortune to have worked directly with (or as is often the case) without them! Frankly, they are little more than a tin-pot weekend TA unit. Sorry.

Kind regards to all
TSM

[Cambridge Crash]

TSM

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Art V was invoked by the NAC on 12 Sep 01; the US steadfastly refused multilateral invovlment in Afghanistan except those who could directly assist (eg UK and France). This was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder that the Bush administration made immediately after 9/11.

Patrols in the Eastern Med commenced a few weeks later - these still continue and cover the whole of the Med. And NATO didn't get involved in George Bush's war of choice (did Sadam Hussein attack a NATO partner?), and amongst a plethora of other assets, NATO assigned Patriot Batteries were deployed in defence of Turkey, as were NATO AWACS (much to the consternation of the US). NATO members (including those steadfastly opposed to the war in Iraq) also provided FPB counter-terror escorts through STROG for US merchant and USNS vessels and extensive Q route surveys were also conducted by NATO.

Falklands? Under what circumstances could NATO get involved in an extra-territorial campaign? Overseas terroritories were - and are - specifically excluded from the North Atlantic Treaty, with the exception of the Canary Islands, as indeed they are under UN Charter Chapter VII. It was under this principle that NATO could not get involved when Morrocan troops occupied the Parasil Islands off North Africa in 2002 - which constitute Spanish territory. As I am sure you can recall, NATO MC allowed the UK to down-declare NATO assigned assets so the the UK could deploy a much larger task force in the South Atlantic.

As I also mentioned in an earlier post, NATO doesn't exist solely for the defence of the UK - one should consider the tangible contribution to the rehabilitation of Eastern Europe that NATO has made under the accession protocols. Call it soft security, but the use of force is but one way to defeat an 'enemy'. There is also the legal obligation on the UK of pacta sund servanda, ie the treaty is legally binding.

CC

[The Swinging Monkey]

CC

Why use 10 words when 688 will do eh?
Sorry my dear chap, I don't agree with you at all.
I don't want a bl$$dy history lesson, I'm just telling you FIRST HAND that NATO is rubbish.

Thats it, rant over and switches back to safe
(awaiting your next installment of War & Peace)

Kind regards
TSM

[Cambridge Crash]

TSM

Just thought that you might appreciate some factual material on which to base your argument. (15 words)

CC

NATO doesn't stand for Needs Americans to Operate.

[jindabyne]

SM

C'mon old thing, leave off CC - you started the history bit! Great mistake allowing Carruthers to bog off.

I'm with CC, BM & M609. Worked as part of NATO for 12 years, and whilst much has changed since the end of the C War, I see nothing that makes NATO redundant; it may well be imperfect and frustrating at times, but if it ain't broke (and IMHO it isn't), and there's nothing with with which to replace it, don't dismantle it, work at making it work. I would be nervous if the modernists were to kick it into touch.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Chaps,
Maybe I've got the wrong end of your stick here, but I am NOT advocating 'binning' NATO. I am simply pointing out that it does not work, certainly NOT in the way if was created for.

CC Sorry to be so rude about your historynlesson old bean! I was in need of some Grouse and with Caruthers away, I had run out and was suffering from the 'withdrawl sympom thingies!' - do forgive me.

Lond live NATO, but lets run it the way it should be run eh??

Kind regards
TSM
'Caruthers, good to see you back, now cut away to Tescos and get stocked up on the Famous Stuff!!'

[Cambridge Crash]

TSM - thanks for your comments. No offence taken.

How would you like NATO to be run, bearing in mind the defence of the Sovereign state is an inviolable and unalieanble right? UN Charter Art 51 describes the 'inherent - ie natural - right of Self Defence' and as such it is rarely delegated by a State; although States can agree to collective self defence under Chapter VII. In other words, States are loathed to allow other parties to make unilateral decisions about their sovereign right of self defence, so the one country - one vote principle - with right of veto, will continue in the North Atlantic Council. Thus, at least theoretically, Lithuania has the same weight as the US, under the equality principle of pari parem non habet imperium ie no state should be expected to submit to the laws, rule and findings of another.

Considerable restructuring has taken place in the course of the 18 months under the Transformation programme. The Joint Sub Regional Commands (which served no operational purpose, save for augmentation) have been abolished. The NRF has been stood up, which has raised the game for all participants. The two declared JFCs have trimmed staffing levels and drastically reduced the numbers of civilian staff, and are increasingly being run as a joint HQ should. This is a remarkable effort given the political needs of 26 nations - and the political climate since 9/11 - albeit that some political compromises continue.

I am not here as a NATO appologist; I am simply a student of political-military affairs. The NATO alliance, whilst not without many faults, is a remarkable organisation without historical precedence or parallel.

CC

ps Thank God you're back Carruthers! Your chap is in need of some attention!

[The Swinging Monkey]

CC

I understand that you are probably far more emmenantly qualified to talk about NATO and its history blah.
I am simply talking as someone who has worked directly with NATO at the front end.
I flew NATO AWACS during GW1, and I wasn't joking when I said I came the closest to dyeing in an aeroplane, and if it wasn't for a pretty switched on Canadian, we may well have scratched 17 crew.
Maybe I am being a bit simplistic, but it makes a mockery of NATO when you find that aircraft cannot take off from GK on this day, because of this bit of niff naff. The Italiamns can't fly on this day because its the Popes birthday or whatever. Come on, if you work within NATO, you will know exactly what I am reffering to.
This is what is wrong with NATO, the day-to-day running of a 'so-called' fighting force.
Of course I can only speak about the flying side, and AEW in particular, but I have litttle doubt that things are the same with the grunts on the ground??

Anyway, I'm not knocking it with a view of binning it, just putting in my 'two penneth' of personal experience.

kind regards
TSM
ps Caruthers says its good to be back, and he's doing his best to getting me back in line!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

NATO: No Action - Talk Only.......

[Cambridge Crash]

NATO - Not Around at Two O'clock

[Yeller_Gait]

OTAN - Oh! The Alternative NATO

[Bunker Mentality]

NATO - Numerous Attractive Tour Opportunities

[SpotterFC]

Bit OT

SHAPE - Super Holidays At Public Expense

Evening BM

[elderforest]

NATO - Nasty Accent on Take Off ? - No Aircraft Tasking Order?

OTAN - Only The Airforce kNows !!

those long winter evenings just fly ...