"North Atlantic Treaty Organization"
One of the next big things is the NATO Summit. Members will meet in Riga, Latvia, November 28-29 for a summit level gathering of heads of state. Secretary Rice will be going along with (OCP) our current president. Today's article in Monsters and Critics.com is an excellent summary of the issues facing the group. To quote,
NATO solidarity will be tested at a November 28-29 summit in the Latvian capital on issues as diverse as the alliance's uphill struggle to end the insurgency in Afghanistan, plans for stronger cooperation with global allies, and further expansion to the east.
Leaders will also review progress in NATO's military modernization and transformation amid demands for a fairer share-out of mission costs and an increase in European governments' defence spending.
Given the daunting - and potentially divisive - issues on the table, NATO policymakers warn against expecting breakthrough decisions at the summit.
NATO has the responsibility for Afghanistan - On 11/21/06 C-SPAN broadcast a briefing by the State Department's spokesman Nicholas Burns, who claims that the European alliance "is fully restored". Burns, Under Secretary for International Affairs, discussed NATO's current biggest effort, the war with the resurgent Taliban in three provinces in southern Afghanistan. A total of 32,000 troops fight in Afghanistan, coming from Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands - and 12,000 coming from U.S. There are also 25 allied Provisional Reconstruction Teams working throughout the country.
Secretary Burns concluded his briefing with comments on additional items that could be on the NATO summit agenda. He outlined what he called two of NATO's "weaknesses:" First, only 7 of the allied members spend more than 3% of their GDP on defense. Second, Burns maintains that the U.S. would like to make sure that deployed NATO forces are "free to operate in the countries where they are asked to go." "Caveats" are restrictions placed on what various countries' forces are willing to do in the regions where they are deployed. These official caveats mean that the armed forces are not under the direct control of the NATO commander, but under the control of their own nations' capitals.
Established in 1949, NATO (also called the North Atlantic Alliance) began with 19 countries. It is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. Today the number has grown to 26 NATO allies and 11 "partners." The "partners" fall into three categories: (1) the "partnership for peace" group - eastern europe and central asian countries; (2) the "mediterranean dialogue countries;" and (3) the "global partnership" countries - Australia, Japan, South Korea along with the non-EU nations, Sweden and Findland.
For 50 years NATO did not engage in any combat. But the 1990's saw NATO change, as its members sought to intervene in the conflict-ridden breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Continued NATO peacekeeping in the Balkans since 1999, have been the organization's most recent successful sustained effort. Though I do not generally reference Wikipedia, their web site is an excellent point of reference for the history, focus, composition and proposed expansion of NATO. NATO's head man - A recent (10/16/06) S/SW post included a section on U.S. General James L. Jones. As NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Jones has been an impressively intelligent and outspoken General while still serving in the military. Charged with the very challenging task of achieving decision consensus among NATO member countries participating in the Afghanistan conflict, he appears to be a very wise and able leader. His call is for more reconstruction, training of Afghanni police, and rebuilding the Afghan justice system, emphasizing that military victory will not work by itself.
Technorati tags: security current affairs news NATO international EU Afghanistan war
My "creative post" today at Southwest Blogger is about "my man - FDR."
My “dreams and dreaming” post today at Good Second Mondays is about discussing dreams with others.
2 comments:
it's ironic that they are fighting to keep the peace. bush and company wanted to throw out the un in favor of nato. imagine that.
What Iraq should teach leaders is that it is impossible to control outcomes when you impose solutions at the end of a gun.
You're right, betmo. The United Nations never got respect nor any nurturing from the current administration.
NATO, if it is to succeed over the long haul is going to have to get as good at nation building as it is at fighting to keep the peace. It is ironic, isn't it?
Post a Comment