TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- NATO to expand?

NATO to expand?

quote:

Ex-Spanish premier calls on NATO to add Israel as member Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar called for far-reaching NATO reforms to combat Islamic extremism, including expansion of the alliance membership to include Israel, Japan and Australia. The appeal came in an article published Thursday. Writing for the Jerusalem Issue Brief series of the Jerusalem-based Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Aznar said "it is imperative to defend our values and way of life against a new threat: Islamic extremism and terrorism." The article was based on a presentation he made at the institute on March 16. To transform NATO from a military alliance against the now-extinct Eastern bloc into a force that can counter the current threat, he wrote, "NATO must refocus itself on fighting terror, the major threat today. Indeed, this is an existential threat." Aznar wrote that the alliance, formed in the aftermath of World War II to counter the rise of the Soviet Union and its allies, must shift away from its geographic definition and "widen its membership, open its doors to those nations that share our values, that defend them on the ground, and that are willing to join in the fight against jihadism. Thus, NATO should invite Japan, Australia and Israel to become full members." "NATO must come to terms with the new strategic realities, that we are at war, because our foes have declared it upon us," Aznar wrote. In an apparent reference to al-Qaida, he wrote, "They could be hiding in a cave far away, but their vision is crystal clear. They want to recreate the caliphate from Spain to the Philippines. They want a fundamentalist reading of Islam to be the ruling law." Aznar, who served as prime minister of Spain from 1996-2004, wrote that NATO must change its strategic concept, working inside the borders of its members instead of concentrating on external threats. "We cannot say that today the front between internal and external security has become blurred and at the same time keep all the administrative and institutional barriers separating them," he wrote. "Furthermore, we must understand that jihadism is a global movement in its scope, with different levels of expression, from car bombs to radical sermons in mosques, Internet sites, and TV stations." Aznar wrote that Israel is the target of Islamic extremism with the ascension of Hamas to power in the Palestinian areas. He said NATO should extend its protection to Israel, also as a way of deterring Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction and is, Aznar wrote, clearly pursuing nuclear weapons. "The West cannot fight this radical tide without Israel. Israelis might decide that for their own security they had better follow the traditional policy of relying just on themselves," he wrote. "But Islamic extremism is more a tsunami than a tide, and in front of this powerful force we better stand together."

(Source)

I can't help think what an inclusion of Israel would mean to the "Musketeer-oath" of NATO - Israel is pretty much threatened by attacks daily, and now that the PA is run by Hamas, one could claim that Israel is indeed attacked by a foreign nation.

I realize that this is the musings of a single ex-head of state, but assuming that the three countries actually got the invitation, would it make sense for them to join? And what about Russia - why shouldn't it be a full member too?

Re: NATO to expand?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic And what about Russia - why shouldn't it be a full member too?

Because they would rather have their own cool club.

NATO won't accept countries that might actually envoke article 5!!!

I'm not sure that NATO is particularly relevent anymore. I could understand the necessity of its formation by free, democratic nations to ward off the common threat of statist communism, but I fail to see what role it's performing now that couldn't more ideally be performed by the UN. As for the addition of Isreal, Australia and Japan, it seems to me like all that's trying to acheive is the formation of an exclusive military alliance for Western nations. Beyond holding nominally Western values and a common disdain for terrorism, I don't think that any of these nations (let alone the existing members) have enough in common geographically, demographically or ideologically (particularly with regards to foreign policy) to make such an alliance necessary or particularly workable. The west already holds a virtual monopoly in the UNSC, so why do we need an additional exclusive club in order to defend Western security interests?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm not sure that NATO is particularly relevent anymore. I could understand the necessity of its formation by free, democratic nations to ward off the common threat of statist communism, but I fail to see what role it's performing now that couldn't more ideally be performed by the UN. As for the addition of Isreal, Australia and Japan, it seems to me like all that's trying to acheive is the formation of an exclusive military alliance for Western nations. Beyond holding nominally Western values and a common disdain for terrorism, I don't think that any of these nations (let alone the existing members) have enough in common geographically, demographically or ideologically (particularly with regards to foreign policy) to make such an alliance necessary or particularly workable. The west already holds a virtual monopoly in the UNSC, so why do we need an additional exclusive club in order to defend Western security interests?

Perhaps because the UN would be slow to act with physical force if at all? Do they even do anything outside of peace keeping operations from a military standpoint? It might be more of a deterrant for North Korea to give pause at the idea of lobbing a few rockets at Japan or Australia if that would involve them being at war with the NATO countries as opposed to invoking the UN's ire.

Considering that it is ultimately a self-defense treaty with the mandate only being to assist the attacked state by means it deems fit, there is no voting or decision by majority and each nation retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions, I'm not overly concerned at its expansion.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps because the UN would be slow to act with physical force if at all?

Note that I said "ideally" by the UN. If nations were more willing to commit troops to the UN and to have their soldiers fight under international command, then UN would obviously be much more capable of being able to intervene militarily. The perceived faults of the UN (including its sluggishness in responding to international crises) often have more to do with the attitudes of its member states, in my opinion, than with the UN bureaucracy itself.

quote:

Do they even do anything outside of peace keeping operations from a military standpoint?

No, because its member states refuse to commit any of their own resources to it in that capacity, and that's really what I'm arguing - why couldn't the military budgets and commitments to NATO be diverted to the UN instead?

quote:

It might be more of a deterrant for North Korea to give pause at the idea of lobbing a few rockets at Japan or Australia if that would involve them being at war with the NATO countries as opposed to invoking the UN's ire.

Haha, well I'm pretty sure that if North Korea tried lobbing rockets at any country that Pyongpang would be a smoking crater within the hour, regardless of what military agreements that country had in place. Also, note that I'm not arguing against military treaties here (Australia and the US, for instance, have the ANZUS treaty in which Australia, New Zealand and the US pledge military support to each other wherever one of these nations is attacked), merely the relevence of a military bloc consisting of members who - aside from a nominal commitment to a "Western" ideology (whatever that might entail) - really do not share any particular universal ideology, especially since the fall of communism.

quote:

Considering that it is ultimately a self-defense treaty with the mandate only being to assist the attacked state by means it deems fit, there is no voting or decision by majority and each nation retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions, I'm not overly concerned at its expansion.

I'm not "overly concerned at its expansion" either, I'm merely questioning the necessity of the organisation when its role is already (or could easily be made to be) covered by other international bodies and agreements.

Re: Re: NATO to expand?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Because they would rather have their own cool club.

you know what i love about discussing Russia and the Soviet Bloc? is that everything sounds so funny yet is extremely true.

anyway you cut it, Israel is a key player in this.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Note that I said "ideally" by the UN. If nations were more willing to commit troops to the UN and to have their soldiers fight under international command, then UN would obviously be much more capable of being able to intervene militarily. The perceived faults of the UN (including its sluggishness in responding to international crises) often have more to do with the attitudes of its member states, in my opinion, than with the UN bureaucracy itself.

I agree with what you write here - as it is written - but at the same time think that the "ideally" part is so crucial that occrider's point about effectiveness still stands. The utter failure of the UN to intervene in the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur can IMHO not be blamed solely on member states not wanting to send soldiers or money. At least in the case of Darfur, it is due to the power wielding members obstructing each others initiatives for purely selfish reasons. Another case would be the genocide of Muslims in Kosovo, which was stopped by NATO. God only knows how long the UNSC could have spent on that issue (seeing how Russia was friendly with Milosovic), and how many more people would have died before the UN intervened.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Haha, well I'm pretty sure that if North Korea tried lobbing rockets at any country that Pyongpang would be a smoking crater within the hour, regardless of what military agreements that country had in place.

Well, it's not only about retaliation, it's also about the power balance. As things are now NK can pretty much demand whatever they want while still threatening their neighbours whenever they feel like it. (Something that Iran has observed and learned from.)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Also, note that I'm not arguing against military treaties here (Australia and the US, for instance, have the ANZUS treaty in which Australia, New Zealand and the US pledge military support to each other wherever one of these nations is attacked), merely the relevence of a military bloc consisting of members who - aside from a nominal commitment to a "Western" ideology (whatever that might entail) - really do not share any particular universal ideology, especially since the fall of communism.

How about a genuine commitment to democracy, human rights and secularity? I know that you can find counter examples where these are not fully implemented (the US seems to provide for counter examples for all three), but the NATO countries do strive for this goal and actively work for their adoption in the rest of the world.
If you buy this attempt at sketching out a "shared ideology", then you might have the answer to your question on why money should be diverted to NATO rather than the UN: A lot of UN member states do not share these values.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.