Leading article: Nato's anniversary is a chance for fresh thinking
Afghanistan and expansion top an agenda that needs to be addressed
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The 60th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – unchallenged as the most successful military alliance ever – is being celebrated today on both sides of the French-German border. The symbolism has many layers. It marks not only more than six decades of peace between France and Germany, but also the restoration of a Europe "whole and free" after the end of the Cold War, and the return of France to Nato's military command after an absence of 43 years.
Nato's major anniversaries, however, have a habit of falling at times when celebration seems least in order. The 20th came just a year after Soviet troops had invaded Czechoslovakia. The 40th coincided with the turmoil that attended the collapse of communism; it preceded the fall of the Berlin Wall by only a few months, but could not foresee either that event or its consequences. And the 50th birthday party took place in Washington when transatlantic disputes about Kosovo were at their height, and two years before the attacks of 9/11 brought the alliance back together in the face of a hitherto unimagined threat.
At 60, Nato finds itself at another awkward juncture. Its forces risk becoming bogged down in Afghanistan and serious questions are being raised about the purpose of its mission there. As the alliance welcomes another two new members, Croatia and Albania, some established members ask how far expansion can go without diluting capability. And the question first raised after the Soviet collapse has never really been answered: if Nato's purpose is no longer to defend the West against Russia, what is the alliance for? Defused for the time being by France's return is the need to reconcile Nato obligations with those of European defence.
The immediate priority, though, is Afghanistan, and what happens there will determine much else. The timetable President Obama has set for the US withdrawal from Iraq makes a redirection of US resources possible. But he has also made clear that he sees Afghanistan as a Nato endeavour that must be properly shared; as such, it constitutes a supreme test of the alliance.
That Mr Obama is thinking in terms not just of military operations, but training and infrastructure projects as well, should make it easier for European countries to increase their contributions. So, too, will the US President's clarity about the objectives: to prevent Afghanistan becoming a haven for terrorists again and to withdraw as soon as Afghans can look after their own security. Mr Obama insisted again yesterday that Nato is not, and must not become, an occupier.
Most European Nato members will be able to sign up to this. Whether they will be willing to help to foot the bill in these austere times is a separate issue. As the outgoing Nato Secretary-General said yesterday, some Europeans may also be deterred from helping if the Kabul government approves a new law that could curb civil rights, especially the rights of women.
His warning gets to the heart of a dilemma that will be posed more frequently, if – as some believe it must – Nato operates more "out of area". How far should a Western, and Western-funded, alliance shore up regimes whose authority may depend on professing very different values?
There is likely to be some hard talking about Nato today; not as hard, though, as it would have been before the US elections. Mr Obama has set a new tone of consensus for the alliance. The conceptual distance between the US and the European allies is narrower than for some years. That bodes well for some necessary new thinking.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Really? Many people would argue that the alliance between North Vietnam and peasants in the south was far more successful than NATO.
A similar alliance between people who object to their homelands being invaded could well give NATO a similar salutory lesson in overstretch and arrogance in Afghanistan at some stage.
Then there is the matter of Georgia. Russia soon demonstrate it was not going to put up with the antics of a pro-NA
Whilst the original idea of NATO was to act as a deterrent to prevent Russia from conquering Europe, that is what NATO should have stayed at, not become a private army at our expense for Bush to wage unwinnable wars to protect oil and opium supply lines.
Countries and its people are beginning to wake up to what is going on, not only did America wipe out our economies but is little repentent in asking us to die to uphold American foreign policy which only benefits the US and to save them face if they can.
And now Obama is considering not only continuing this unwinnable theatre of war but extending it across the border into Pakistan, someone like to explain how a military that cannot win in Afghanistan is supposed to win in Pakistan because I can't see it working out...
America, like Britain, is very very overstretched right now, Obama should remember that this led partially to the downfall of the Romans and other empires, military spending is unabated and accelerating but America simply cannot afford these fantasy figure military budgets anymore hence the pressure on the rest of NATO to pick up the tab, sorry but I think this is America's fight... win it or lose it but stop asking our soldiers to die in it.
Really? Many people would argue that the alliance between North Vietnam and peasants in the south was far more successful than NATO. They defeated what was supposedly a superpower.
A similar alliance between people who object to their homelands being invaded could well give NATO a similar salutory lesson in overstretch and arrogance in Afghanistan at some stage.
Then there is the matter of Georgia. A revitalised Russia quickly demonstrated it was not going to put up with the antics of a pro-NATO puppet warmonger, and a powerless NATO sat back and let it Russia do what it needed to do.
China is now gearing up to take number two spot, perhaps even number one spot, and there is not a thing NATO can do about it.
NATO needs cash as we do, unless we have other source of cash we can get from somewhere.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Just a little push by the G20 makes us feel we are already sailing a smooth boat.
Where do we stand now after 5 April?
G20? Economy? What has brought this turnabout? In part, the normal corrective powers of the economy. Larry Summers, Barack Obama?s main economic adviser, says ?current annualised vehicle sales of about 9m are below the 14m necessary for replacement and rising population, while annualised housing starts are about a quarter of the rate needed to support the forming of new households?.
April 1st pay cheques are due to begin reflecting the tax cuts in Barack Obama?s $787 billion fiscal stimulus.
Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, understands that. ?The big mistake governments make in recessions is they see that first glimmer of light, and the impetus to policy fades.? I guess that stand for the fast reaction and less thinking.
The administration wants the money; Congress at present is in no mood to grant it. The Senate and House budget resolutions are silent on the administration?s request for $750 billion in extra funds (with a budgeted cost of $250 billion). The administration is wisely waiting for tempers to cool before asking for the money.
This is what I read as the headers in other UK papers and I wonder if 2011 will be a good year or do we wait for 2012.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
For some reason, the West seems to think it must always wade in to solve the problems of the world. This looks suspiciously like Imperialism by another name. Iraq clearly comes under that heading. Yet far too little is being done to try to settle the long-running Arab-Israel dispute over Palestine. That is a far bigger threat to peace than Afghanistan, and a solution to the Palestine question would bring far bigger benefits to all.
NATO needs clarity in its mission statement. Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact it hasn't had one. What is it for, indeed?
2) Given that Iraq is controlled by a democratically elected government that has voted to remove the Coalition it's hardly Imperialism.
3) How is Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to destroying Israel, more of a threat to world peace than the multinational terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda.
As for Iraq, let's not forget the original justification for the invasion was the search for weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. When they were found not to be there, other reasons for this disaster had to be invented. The whole sorry conflict has cost thousands of lives, mostly Iraqi, and has been based on lies and deceit.
Solving the longstanding Arab-Israeli dispute is the key to peace in the Middle East and much else besides. Hamas, at present is the representative voice of the Palestinians. It needs to be brought to the negotiating table. But with nutters like Lieberman running Israeli foreign policy, that will prove difficult.
And, to be entirely cynical, Western interest in the Middle East region is all about one word - OIL. Let's not forget, our Western governments tolerate some of the world's most repressive and reactionary regimes because of it. I'm talking about Saudi Arabia in particular.
I hold no brief for terrorists or anyone else who advocates war and violence to "solve" the world's problems. Sending our armed forces round the world is neither very smart nor very productive. We are not the world's policeman. We have neither the resources nor the moral authority to be so.
It is time to disband NATO before it becomes a permanent tool of US/Israeli aggression.
NATO had to expand into theatres outside of Europe simply because the UN mission was utterly failing. I would offer up that we are only there as we were responsible for creating the situation.
I pose 3 questions:
Is America the UK or the world safer because of our actions after 9/11? My own thoughts would suggest that the answer is "no". We cannot contain the Islamic world with a seemingly unrestricted war on Islam (at least how are actions are percieved).
Could America "turn the other cheek?" - again history would say "no" to that also - look at their response to the Lusitania that brought them into WW1 and again Pearl Harbour in WW2. I don't think the UK would have been able to either, even the French would have had to do something - only the Spanish turned away after the Madrid bombings - and I would guess their NATO links need to be reestablished.
Do we have to play along - I would suggest that the answer is "yes" but I also think we need to council the US and soften the blow - look to deal with our young muslims in our own countries and make them feel less isolated and militant.
If we are not there alongside the Americans in NATO we cannot benefit from a raft of other benefits, other than assured protection. Ours are not easy times but we are engaged in what is unfortuanately our only viable course of action. We need to decide on what level of force in Afghanistan is sustainable for the long game for anything less than 20 years is a blink of an eye in the Afghan culture.
Anyway, who's inavding westartn countries, because , frankly, I think they need to stamp out the spread of Chistian Fundamentalism...
John Mullen
www.johncmullen.net
It is a sad reflection of man's war like nature that military alliances like NATO, in Europe at least, are necessary and create a foundation for peace, democracy and prosperity.
Maybe someday it will be otherwise, but not sometime soon.
leave them in peace I say and get out of there
So what is NATO doing in the Middle East? Why does it even exist? To provoke WWIII?
The British were in Afghanistan for many years in the 19th century and behaved abominably at a time when there was little information available and most British people probably didn't care anyway. Now a few people do care about how we behave abroad and are more prepared to question things. The Taliban is not a likeable bunch of people and their culture may seem primitive to us but it is hardly any of our business.
We should concentrate our energies and resources on improving our own lot cooperating with those who have a similar outlook on life. Big Oil, Drug Traders and Zionists can fight their own wars.
The propaganda about Islam wanting to take over the world is being spread by people from another ethnic group - Jews - that wants us to fight each other and which has carried out numerous terrorists attacks and blamed them on Muslims.
It is about time we stopped falling for this old trick and looked behind the headlines.
If you look behind the 'Jews are responsible for everything' conspiracy you'll see it's all nonsense. Muslims are really behind the Muslim terrorist attacks.
Zionists are the invisible enemy for humanity, they control majority of Western media, law and finance - this is not theory, its a fact.
Zionists are drawing too much attention to themselves. They dont realise that they plan, but in the background there is a greater plan. Their days are numbered, the world is changing, Islam is making a come back gradually ...
then how they think to take this wild country in to the europea
mirhat botan