NATO needs to expand its reach and power.

[ESLaPorte]

NATO needs to expand its reach and power.
Thu, Jan 29 2004
By ESLaPorte
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm


The explosions in Kabul this last week indicate that NATO needs to expand
its power and reach. The Alliance should embark on missions to weed out
Taliban, al-Queda and mujaheddin fighters. The Alliance needs to call out
its Reaction Force and strike the terrorists. The advances made in NATO
transformation this year need to be called upon and the promises at Prague
need to be kept and take care of the terrorists. Likewise, Turkey should
have at least invoked Article Four shortly after the bombing occurred in
Istanbul while the NATO Reaction Force (NRF) was training 285 US miles away.

While ideally the calling out of the NRF to quickly deal with threats as
envisioned at the Prague Summit back in November 2002 sound that easy, the
truth is that it is not. Not that the deployment of the NRF requires five
days preparation - but that it requires consensus from the NAC (North
Atlantic Council). As we know - getting the NAC to a consensus can be an
awful and trying affair, as we saw last year.

One of the things that NATO has neglected to reform is its decision-making
process. Our Alliance continues to cling stubbornly to the consensus
decision process. While consensus and "presenting a unified front" to the
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact may have been nice for the Cold War - the
current reality is that quick decisions to strike out at looming threats is
what is needed today. While consensus may have been a nice show during the
Cold War - this process will hamstring the NRF and the answer to a terrorist
threat to NATO peoples will go unanswered. The lasting effect will be
devastating for our NATO Alliance - which will - indeed - sink into
irrelevance this time if it fails to act as promised at Prague.

Lastly - some nations in our soon-to-be 26-member alliance may not have the
best intentions for our Alliance. We must anticipate this. While some are
weary that Russia with a "veto" in the Russia - NATO Council could hamstring
the Alliance - we must anticipate a full NATO member - with a mission and
ambassador - could use the consensus process and the phantom "veto" (...some
argue that there is NO veto in NATO!) to likewise hamstring our Alliance and
block action. We must also stop inappropriate efforts to use, as we saw last
year, the NAC as a platform to "protest US policy." We must anticipate this.

NATO must expand its reach and power - and there must be a more liberal use
of Article Four. In order to achieve this goal, the Alliance will have to
sack the notion that it "must get consensus" from all the Ambassadors in the
NAC before it can, say, deploy the NRF. Consensus caters to the "lowest
common denominator" of action, and is main reason why our Alliance has not
gone "out-of-area" in the past. Our Alliance must adopt some sort of a
voting system or multilateral consultation without all NATO members in on
the decision-making process could have the effect of liberating Article
Four. And a meaningful, positive voting system and multilateral
consultations forums would thwart any efforts by an Ally that is hostile to
our Alliance and prevent a "caucus" from forming and using the NAC as an
inappropriate forum for "protesting" another Ally. The security and defense
of both European and non-European allies are at stake - and NATO must
transform this outdated and dangerous process and procedure and expand its
reach and power.

[Eryk]

ESLaPorte,

Post by ESLaPorte
The explosions in Kabul this last week indicate that NATO needs to expand
its power and reach.

No, they indicate that the security situation in Afghanistan is poor. That
is all.

Post by ESLaPorte
The Alliance should embark on missions to weed out
Taliban, al-Queda and mujaheddin fighters.

Hmmm. Perhaps NATO forces should be sent in to weed out the IRA and Spain's
Basque terrorists too?

Post by ESLaPorte
The Alliance needs to call out
its Reaction Force and strike the terrorists.

Why stop at terrorists? Rapists, serial killers, paedophiles and drug
dealers are pretty nasty as well.

Post by ESLaPorte
need to be kept and take care of the terrorists. Likewise, Turkey should
have at least invoked Article Four shortly after the bombing occurred in
Istanbul while the NATO Reaction Force (NRF) was training 285 US miles away.

Alternatively the Turks could (and did) 'call the police'.

Post by ESLaPorte
Atlantic Council). As we know - getting the NAC to a consensus can be an
awful and trying affair, as we saw last year.

Getting any multi-national institution to rubber stamp unilateral American
aggression is likely to prove difficult. Witness the similar obstacles in
the UN.

Post by ESLaPorte
current reality is that quick decisions to strike out at looming threats is
what is needed today.

No prizes where these 'quick decisions' are intended to be made .....1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.

Post by ESLaPorte
While consensus may have been a nice show during the
Cold War - this process will hamstring the NRF and the answer to a terrorist
threat to NATO peoples will go unanswered. The lasting effect will be

<snip wittering>

What this boils down to is actually an argument for disbanding NATO
entirely. There is no point in having such an institution if certain members
can't accept that 'no means no'. In concrete terms, a country (say the USA)
proposes military action, cannot get agreement from the council and
consequently (Shock! Horror!!) DROPS THE IDEA. Alliances like NATO are
worthless unless members are prepared to allow an agreed alliance position
to override national policy. What is in danger of rendering NATO irrelevant
is a doctrine of pre-emptive unilateral action in the teeth of majority
opposition.

Eryk

PS: I used to work for NATO.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 24/01/2004