The aim most be to resolve conflicts and make sure people working in troubled areas are safe, like for instance in Nigeria. The NRF force are a NATO force and are in under the command of the joint member states and it is not meant to be a force for hire at random will, which is quite obvious when you look at the NATO charter and the NRF mandate. Still, if you are a NATO sceptic, no amount of evidence and reassurances in the world will make you change your mind, I guess. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
The best thing would of course to present alternatives when criticizing something, but that is my opinion. I have to add that that is not always easy and that I am no better than anyone else one that department. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
In addition to function as a credible defense organization in is also functioning as a forum for discussion between former foes taken more seriously than other international organizations. NATO funnel security issues within a forum that has evolved for more than fifty years an expertise that is highly relevant even today. For those of us that are interested in good relations with the US it provides bridges across the Atlantic and thus a viable forum for resolving security disputes within a friendly framework.
With the development of the ESDP, the successor of the ESDI under NATO, the EU can benefit from the established infrastructure and force structure of the old defense organization given the fact that the EDI is still in its infancy. This is also the plan agreed upon by the EU and NATO concerning the NRF, which are meant to be used in NATO-led, EU-led and UN-led operations. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Much of the reason why the EU haven't got a security policy and regime on their own has to do with disagreements within the EU member states. The US has actually spoken positively of a stronger defense presences by the EU. The disagreement is over how NATO are to fit into that equation and the insistence of US control over certain aspects within the Defense organization, some of it quite reasonable since the US are by fare the greatest contributer, of all the member states, to the organization both money wise and equipment wise.
If the EU countries can resolve their differences then I am quite sure that the ESDP will develop much quicker and NATO will function more like a defense and security forum with the infrastructure ready to function as a military defense organization if need be. This will guarantee a close relationship to the US and at the same time give EU its own military capability. The NATO structure will evolve from essentially a one pillar system, the US, into a two pillar system consisting of Europe and the US as equal partners. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
That said the Norwegian government at the time led by the Norwegian Labour party, a party, at least the majority of the party, that had been a supporter of the Russian revolution and a onetime member of Comintern back in the 1920s, was led by people that wanted to have a good but cautious relationship to their big neighbor in the east. That is why the government put restrictions on NATO activity in the most northern parts of the country. That didn't include intelligence activity of course, but then again the Russians were hard at work in that department too.
I guess what I am saying is that the fear of Russia in Norway was not as great during the Cold War as in many other countries in Europe, primarily in Eastern Europe, and keeping a good relationship to Russia was high up on the security agenda for all parties irregardless of political color. It was part of the stabilizing policy in the North, which simply stated meant, to the east: Finland was leaning towards the Soviet sphere of influence, in the middle/the buffer zone? Sweden was neutral, at least officially, and to the west: Denmark, Island and Norway were members of NATO and part of the Western sphere of influence. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Should a UN mandate be needed? Which countries can see the intervention of NATO troops without a UN mandate? Is there a troop size trigger? Who decides? Which NATO members' forces participate? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The decision to deploy such a force are to be taken by the member states and that usually means under a UN mandate even though NATO is a stand alone organisational, that has always been the strength of the organization, but most NATO operations have usually been based on a UN mandate, with the exception of the Kosovo operation. The participants in the NRF and thus such an operation are to be drawn from the member states on a rotational basis, decided upon in the Prague meeting in 2002.
Most of the procedures for such a rapid reaction forces have yet to be decided upon are still on the drawing board, but this kind of operation has to be decided by the NATO member states and will, I imagine, be of a more protective nature like escorting tankers through troubled waters. Still, in some cases it could mean rescuing hostages or intervene in a situation where big installations, including oil and gas installations, are under attack from terrorist or guerrilla forces.
Here are some NATO links 1. 2. and 3. that might shade some light on the mission and purpose of these RR Forces. The details are yet to be hammered out. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
