Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Nato

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Nato

    NATO was “born” on 4 April 1949, ostensibly formed to stem a feared invasion of Western Europe. The Treaty that binds the countries belonging to NATO cautiously avoids reference both to the identification of an enemy and to any concrete measures of common defense, according to Wikipedia. Thus, when I was asked to pen an opinion piece regarding NATO, I facetiously asked myself: “Is there still a NATO?” For the past few years, NATO has generally been able to remain out of mainstream headlines.

    Thus, as a prerequisite for writing anything about NATO, I thought I would investigate as to what NATO has been up to these days. First, the organization boasts 26 members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France (whom I thought dropped out years ago; it has remained solely a member of NATO’s political structure), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. It is interesting to note how many ex-Warsaw Pact nations have joined NATO since the recession of the Soviet Union from Europe and its eventual transformation into the Russian Federation.

    A review of NATO’s military involvements include enforcing the UN no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina (1994), its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War (1999) and helped established the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate in Kosovo. After 9/11, NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, the first time in NATO’s history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area.

    Regarding the picture above, blue-colored countries are NATO member states, green-colored countries participate in Partnership for Peace, and red-colored countries participate in Mediterranean Dialogue.
    The Partnership for Peace (PfP) program was established in 1994 and is based on individual bilateral relations between each partner country and NATO: each country may choose the extent of its participation. The PfP programme is considered the operational wing of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership.

    The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council on the other hand was first established on 29 May 1997, and is a forum for regular co-ordination, consultation and dialogue between all 46 participants.
    The 20 partners in the PfP include twelve former Soviet republics (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan), five militarily neutral countries (Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland), and three nations that were formerly Communist (Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, and Albania).

    The Mediterranean Dialogue is a forum of cooperation between NATO and seven countries of the Mediterranean: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Marutitania, Morocco, and Tunisia.

    In 1997, NATO and the Russian Federation made a reciprocal commitment “to work together to build a stable, secure, and undivided continent on the basis of partnership and common interest.” This commitment was strengthened with the establishmen of the NATO-Russia Council, whose purpose is to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action.
    In April 2005, Australia signed a security agreement with NATO on enhancing intelligence cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand also have some various cooperative agreements with NATO.

    Potential members being considered as members of or partners with NATO are Israel, Japan, Australia, India, and Colombia.
    This first post is written as a background piece for future discussion. While Ryan Ruck has kind of stolen a bit of my thunder in his 17 June post, I hope to continue to expand the news on NATO’s activities with a bit of some analysis (open to vigorous but not inflammatory discussion) Also, it is hoped that some cross-ties can be made, especially in those other areas under discussion that are clearly slanted towards the belief that the Russian Federation is transforming into an active military adversary and not-so-future threat.

    Contact Us - - Top

  2. #2
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Cincinnati, OH
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: Nato

    Interesting article David.

    I hadn't known previously about the organizations such as the Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.

    Perhaps it is because they, as far as I can recall, have not played a role in any major world events under those specific auspices. Or, perhaps it is because they are newer organizations?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Nato

    Quote Originally Posted by wallis
    NATO was “born” on 4 April 1949, ostensibly formed to stem a feared invasion of Western Europe.

    Wikipedia is incorrect, NATO came into existence on 24 August 1949.

    A second point they're in error on is that there's nothing "ostensible" about why the North Atlantic Treaty was agreed upon and adopted by the original and subsequent signatories:

    The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

    They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

    They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

    The Treaty that binds the countries belonging to NATO cautiously avoids reference both to the identification of an enemy and to any concrete measures of common defense, according to Wikipedia.

    Thirdly, the Wiki article is incorrect here as well.

    Article 5
    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Article 6 (1)
    For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

    • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

    • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
    Footnotes :
    1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
    2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
    3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.
    The above directly relates to current events and is the specific rationale of why NATO forces are engaged in combat in Afghanistan against a non-state global Islamic insurgency, and why NATO will - at some point in the near future - engage in armed combat with the state-sponsors of global Islamic insurgency.

    In my opinion, any discussion about NATO needs to begin with its basic raison d'etre text charter ... that would be prerequisite step one, with history and current affairs as follow-on necessities.

    My reason to post this is simply that I owe NATO these corrections due to this fact alone...

    The Northeast Intelligence Network is now listed on the Official NATO STARnet DTIN (NATO Defense Against Terrorism Information Node) webpage. The NATO node is designed to be a single point of access for information pertaining to defense against terrorism interests of NATO elements, NATO member countries, and partner countries. All agencies and organizations are listed in alphabetical order.

    The Northeast Intelligence Network is honored to be listed with such intelligence organizations such as the CIA, NSA and a host of government and industry giants. It is a tremendous acknowledgment of which we are very proud.

    Last edited by Sean Osborne; July 11th, 2006 at 11:24.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts