NATO's future, your say
Daniel Korski 12:55pm
I'm in Slovenia, having joined the discussions chaired by Madeleine Albright on NATO's strategic concept, the alliance's blueprint. I have managed to grab a seat next President Obama's NATO envoy, Ivo Daalder, and we have all just listened to Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee.
This process is impressive and the who's who of the NATO community is here, as they were at the first event in Luxembourg a month ago. But there is still an unreal sense about the process. For while it is a great PR opportunity for NATO, it is hard to see how the NATO members will overcome the serious differences that now exist among them.
To help Mrs Albright and her colleagues along, perhaps Coffee Houses could offer answers to the following questions:
1. What is the greatest threat against NATO?
2. What kind of capabilities should NATO emphasise in future?
If you give good answers or raise other key NATO-related points I will raise these during today's meeting.
Previous
Arthur
November 13th, 2009 1:17pm Report this comment1. The unwillingness of our European neighbours to take defence seriously. The performance of a number of our 'allies' in Afghanistan is shameful, and makes me think that NATO may have served its purpose.
2. The ability to project force to defend our interests, across the globe. This should not include the ability to invade sovereign countries (unless the forces or proxies of these nations directly attack NATO members), but should include the ability to defend our friends from external threats or invasion.
TomTOm
November 13th, 2009 2:21pm Report this commentNATO was created to keep US Forces in Europe after 1947 through Ernest Bevin persuading Canadians to keep their forces in Europe as the building block of an alliance. It was Britain that brought North America into alliance. NATO is the only surving alliance - CENTO is gone, SEATO is gone - it was largely US/UK resolve that kept NATO vibrant.
Germany saw NATO as its defence guarantee on its eastern border; Spain saw it as a means of keeping its army out of domestic politics. It has never meant the same to Mainland Europe as to maritime powers like Britain and the USA.
Germny has cut conscription to 6 months rather than spend money on a professional army. Even the nursing homes refuse to take Zivis for just 6 months when they refuse to serve; it is ludicrous because Germany is infected with SPD Socialism equating soldiers with Waffen-SS and a professional army with Blitzkrieg.
It is the childish and farcical pollution of public debate that makes soldiers out to be psychopaths that has made serious debate impossible and left Germans trapped in a cul-de-sac of 1960s Leftism. There are good German units like KSK but otherwise an obese and poorly equipped military incapable to acting as an army.
NATO has allowed infanilism to permeate German society with defence treated as US Welfare without cost and without contribution.
Rhoda Klapp
November 13th, 2009 3:00pm Report this commentI see nothing more than a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, with all the usual suspects and more holding jolly boondoggles which ahve nothing to do with a military alliance. Therefore the greatest threat is NATO. And its greatest challenge of capability would be to find a way to pass the baton to whatever replaces it in the future, for its time has passed.
Fitzgerald
November 13th, 2009 3:08pm Report this comment1. NATO needs to encourage EU burden-sharing. The Tories are going to cut the UK's defence budget, and Europe is currently massively misspending its 2 billion defence budget. The best mechanism for burden-sharing is not for Gens. Dannatt et al to wait for a life on American aircraft but actually pool resources with neighbours with simimarily sized defence budgets. I dont see this happening however, William Hague is still busy fighting Waterloo and penning rather average biographies of men who beat up lots of pesky Contintentals. But leaving the UK aside, other European countries should do this. Defence and stabilisation spending burden sharing makes eminient sense in an Alliance woefully strapped for cash.
Colin
November 13th, 2009 8:53pm Report this commentNATO needs a mission that ordinary people can recognise and believe in, it also desperately needs a leader like Manfred Woerner.
In recent times, The Secretary general role has been held by pygmies like George Robertson, as a result, it has become the tool of vainglorious, dangerous adventurers like Blair.
2trueblue
November 13th, 2009 10:49pm Report this commentFitzgerald, your colours are clear by being critical of the Tories and Hague. For the past 12trs we have had Blair/Brown in power and despite Blairs so called great communication skills and being such a big player on the world stage, nothing improved in the areas they managed, so perhaps you should look at how they did/did not do before running off and judging what the Tories might or might not do. This, especially in a week when we now know that the MOD have been paying nice bonuses to those securely behind desks.
Britain and America have always participated well and others have let them. Our other NATO partners must do their share. But it will not happen. They either do not think it is worth the commitment or do not have the guts for it. These great partners are also our EU partners whom Blair/Brown signed away our freedoms to, so what can we expect?
Back to top