• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NATO at the heart of a new Cold War

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
NATO at the heart of a new Cold War, says former Ambassador
David Pugliese More from David Pugliese
Published on: September 9, 2014Last Updated: September 9, 2014 11:48 PM EDT

By James Bissett

Defence Watch Guest Writer

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was meant to be a purely defensive organization. When the Brussels Treaty of 1948 established the European Defence Alliance of five European countries, it was Canada’s Minister of Foreign affairs, Louis St. Laurent, who proposed the alliance be expanded to include the United States and Canada.

One year later, in April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was born. The primary purpose of the new organization was to defend member states from any attack from the Soviet Union and to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

NATO was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its founders were painfully aware that having reached the mid-point of the 20th century there had already been two world wars and the dropping of the atom bomb on civilian cities. They were determined that war and violence should not become the norm in resolving disputes and it was in this spirit that Article I of the treaty was conceived.

Article I of the Treaty made this abundantly clear. It read:

“The parties undertake, as set out forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved, by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered… and to refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

For fifty years NATO was successful in deterring aggression against the West. A combination of conventional forces and the nuclear bomb created a mutual understanding that armed conflict between the two opposing powers was not an option. Critically important, however, was Article I itself because it was a guarantee to the Soviet Union that it would never be attacked by NATO forces. Article I acted as a safety blanket for the Soviets.

Ironically, the fall of the Soviet empire did not foretell the beginning of a new age of peace and security in Europe. On the contrary, the empire’s demise caused a crisis in NATO. After the Warsaw Pact armies had returned home what was the justification of maintaining such an expensive and powerful military force in Europe. NATO’s response was – business as usual- a continuation of the Cold war. As the respected former United States Ambassador to Moscow, George F Kennan wrote in 1987…”Were the Soviet Union, to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military industrial complex would have to remain substantially unchanged until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” Until his death Kennan continued to deplore NATO’s hostile encirclement of Russia.

In fact, NATO didn’t have to find another adversary it just pretended nothing had changed and acted accordingly. NATO’s behaviour towards Russia speaks for itself; a record marked by duplicity, double standards and hypocrisy. One of its first acts was to convert the Alliance from a purely defensive organization to one that could intervene militarily to resolve international disputes by force. The opportunity for this transformation occurred with the 78 day bombing of Serbia in March 1999 carried out by NATO without authorization from the UN Security Council. Later, in violation of UN Resolution 1244 reaffirming Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo, NATO recognized the unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence – declared without any pretence of a referendum.

During the bombing on NATO’s 50th birthday, US President Bill Clinton announced a new role for NATO – from now he declared, in effect, that NATO could intervene wherever and whenever it decided to do so. Article I of the treaty presumably had been nullified by Presidential decree. The NATO treaty had been turned upside down. In the same month NATO admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO thus breaking the promise made to Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev that if Russia allowed a united Germany into NATO the organization would never expand eastward.

The current crisis in Ukraine threatens global security and at worst has the potential for nuclear catastrophe. At best it signals a continuation of the Cold War. Sadly, the crisis is completely unnecessary and the responsibility lies entirely in the hands of the United States – led NATO powers. The almost virulent propaganda onslaught blaming Russia for the instability and violence in Ukraine simply ignores reality and the facts.

NATO, spurred on by the United States, has been determined since the collapse of the Soviet Union to surround Russia with hostile NATO members. The first attempt to win Ukraine over to the West through the Orange Revolution in 2004 failed but NATO kept trying and now has “let slip the dogs of war” on that unfortunate country.

It was inevitable that NATO’s expansion eastward would at some point run into hostile Russian reaction. The attack on South Ossetia in 2008 by the US armed and trained Georgian military was the last straw and Russia finally showed its teeth and crushed the Georgian offensive in 48 hours. The Russians then added insult to injury by recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. President Putin had warned that the illegal recognition of Kosovo independence would set a dangerous precedent and endanger the international framework of peace and security. Obviously his warning was unheeded and now the Cold War has started again. This was not supposed to happen.

It is time for the citizenry of the NATO countries to demand that the principles contained in the original NATO treaty be honoured and that Article I be followed. Bellicose statements, sanctions and other warlike moves (however futile) are not helpful in reaching a peaceful solution. NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen should stop threatening Russia and instead reaffirm to the world that Article 1 of the treaty will be enforced.

(James Bissett is a former Canadian diplomat. He was Canada’s ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/nato-at-the-heart-of-a-new-cold-war-says-former-ambassador
 

Steve

Well-known member
her you go again... :roll: :shock:

why not actually read article one...

NATO didn't invade the Ukraine.. Russia DID...

but keep up the good work on behalf of the soviets..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Risking NATO : Testing the Limits of the Alliance in Afghanistan

NATO's success in Afghanistan — or lack thereof — will have significant implications for the alliance itself. Success could promote the image of a capable global security alliance. Failure, or even an indeterminate outcome, would cloud the alliance's own future. The authors examine the risks, commitments, and obligations of the current mission in light of NATO's history and with an eye toward the future, as well as the effects on the alliance's internal dynamics. Drawing on a wide range of sources, the authors describe how NATO came to be involved, concerns and tensions that have developed over the investments and risks that member and nonmember states have in the operation, management of the expectations of nations and peoples, and the need for a coherent, comprehensive, and coordinated long-term strategy. The list of issues NATO faces is long and daunting and extends beyond the borders of the member countries. If the goal is indeed to look toward the future, however, the alliance must confront them; failure to do so would risk the long-term success and sustainability of the alliance.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG974.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
for as much as you repeat the same article ,.. it still doesn't say anything worthwhile.. NATO is fundamentally the same as it was intended in 1949,.

it is the UN that has devolved into a worthless waste of time and resources..

I would rather live by the principles of the NATO treaty with allies standing up for each other then the purposes consistent with the existing UN

seems the only country worried about NATO is Russia,. and that was the purpose.. to keep nations such as Russia from attacking smaller less equipped European nations..


but if you want to live by the principles of the existing UN then so be it..

but the fact remains is that Russia is at the heart of the new cold war,.. same as it was in the old cold war..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
for as much as you repeat the same article ,.. it still doesn't say anything worthwhile.. NATO is fundamentally the same as it was intended in 1949,.


same article :lol:

Do you ever research/read anything, before you criticize? Or do you just jump to conclusions...

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force and conducted by RAND Project AIR FORCE.



the article in the opening post was written by

James Bissett

Former Executive Director, Canadian Immigration Service Mr. Bissett is a former Canadian Ambassador with 36 years of service in the government of Canada. He was the Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania, and High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago. From 1985 to 1990, he was the Executive Director of the Canadian Immigration Service. During this period, he served on the Prime Minister's Intelligence Advisory Committee. Upon leaving the Public Service in 1992, he was employed by the International Organization of Migration as their Chief of Mission in Moscow. He worked in Moscow for five years helping the Russian Government establish a new Immigration Service and draft new Immigration legislation and a new Citizenship Act. During this period, he was in Chechnya helping evacuate and find accommodation for refugees fleeing the civil war there in 1994. Since his return to Canada in 1997, Mr. Bissett has acted as a consultant to the Government on a number of immigration issues. He was a regular panelist on the now-defunct Public Broadcasting System (PBS) TV Program, The Editors, and is a regular contributor of articles to Canadian newspapers.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=14588&txID=2490


I'm fairly certain that the authors of these articles know more about NATO, than both of us put together.

Why not try to have a constructive conversation, instead of calling names and deflecting?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Asset Publisher
Aaron Willschick | April 17, 2013
Bigger is Better? NATO's "Enlarging" Role

NATO's shift from an Alliance focused on deterring a nuclear Soviet Union to a democratizing force has been fundamental in ensuring democracy in former Soviet countries. The Alliance has motivated Eastern European countries, through the incentive of international security, to increase transparency, liberalize their markets, and promote democracy. NATO, therefore, should continue to encourage countries, especially in the Balkan, to join the Alliance.

The North Atlantic Alliance has undergone a significant transformation since the latter days of the Cold War. In the last two decades, NATO has gone from an exclusive group of western democracies united against a potentially aggressive and nuclear armed Soviet Union, to a large group of newly westernized countries, causing its role in the global landscape to be much less clear. The world order has fundamentally altered since the fall of the Soviet Union and it has had a major effect not only on the countries involved, but the global security environment. A bipolar world has given way to a multipolar one, which has left NATO in a dubious position.

A New Role:

As a result of these global developments, NATO has had to redefine its role. Without a clear threat from a wealthy, armed and potentially aggressive world power, NATO's primary purpose was no longer simply to be a powerful military alliance able to come together at a moment's notice to protect the security of its member states. There have been several regional crises that NATO had an active role in during the 1990s and early 2000s, but nothing has matched its stabilizing role as a military organization of the Cold War era.

Without a clear post-Cold War role, NATO has transformed itself from a military and defense alliance into a politically stabilizing force. This is evidenced in the Alliance's successive enlargements that have occurred over the last decade and a half. NATO enlargement to the east has been driven by an internal challenge to adjust to the new global order. The fifteen former satellite states of the Soviet Union were left to fend for themselves when the Union dissolved at the end of 1991. With Communism no longer a feasible political or economic option, these suddenly independent states began the slow path toward democracy and a liberal, free market economy. Ultimately, the key goal for these states came to be acceptance into the Western world and Western institutions.

Fortunately for the transition states, NATO has come to be the primary gateway to the West for these emerging countries, which has fundamentally altered the organization's role and responsibilities. This has in some respects transformed the Alliance from a military and defense union into a force for democratization. To become a member of NATO, all prospective members must be democratic countries that operate under the rule of law. To meet these standards, the Central and Eastern European countries have had to internally accelerate the process of institutional development. This has precipitated widespread institutional reforms, the acceptance of free and fair elections and transformation to a market economy. Not only is NATO membership seen as an end in itself, but the Central and Eastern European states have also viewed it as a gateway to EU membership.

Enlarging to the East:

The fourth enlargement of NATO in 1999 to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland marked a monumental victory for the Alliance and the West. States, which were once so firmly entrenched in Communism and the grasp of the Soviet Union, were now joining the most prominent Western institution. This continued with the addition of the rest of the Central European countries in 2004 and then the extension into the Balkans in 2009 with the addition of Albania and Croatia. NATO has been very successful at offering incoming states regional and international security as a large incentive in return for institutional development and even economic stability.

These successive enlargements have not only expanded NATO's territorial influence, but membership has provided the key motivation for formerly unstable countries to steady their political systems and economies. Whether intentional or not, NATO has been one of the primary reasons why the Balkans and Eastern Europe have stabilized from a political point of view. Consequently, NATO's role has drastically transformed simultaneously with the democratization of Central and Eastern Europe.

NATO's Role in the Future:

Although its goals and objectives have changed to a great extent, NATO has been fairly successful at creating political and regional stability in Eastern Europe. Enlargement has been the key engine behind these developments which is fairly astonishing given that this was an alliance created to protect its members from military attacks. Without a clear threat from an aggressive state, NATO was left with no choice but to adapt to the conditions of a changing global order. The events of September 11th and the emergence of non-state actors such as terrorist and extremist groups have precipitated unprecedented changes in the world, which has fundamentally modified NATO's role and effectiveness as an alliance. The NATO of present day has settled nicely into a more politically stabilizing role, which it should continue in for the near future, especially with the rest of the Balkan countries eager to gain access to the alliance.

Aaron Willschick graduated from the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs with a Master's in European, Russian and Eurasian Studies. He currently works for The Atlantic Council of Canada.

http://www.atlantic-community.org/web/guest/print/-/asset_publisher/Bwkm77BDDnXu/content/bigger-is-better-nato-s-enlarging-role
 
Top