Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Why is NATO in the EU's interest? That's the question I can't get answered.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 02:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NATO might not be in the EU's interest as such, but it is certainly in the interest of the member states.  It is an organization that has provided security for its member states for almost 60 years and is an efficient defense organization to rely on in the future.  With the development of a multi polar world the need for security are as great as it was during the Cold War only different.  

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.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 03:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would be much happier if the EU developed its European Defence Agency.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 04:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, some day I imagine it will.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US can't allow that to happen: it would lose the control it exerts over EU foreign policy via NATO.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the US has no say in the matter when it comes down to real policy matters in the EU.  The EU ought to listen to US concerns of course, but when it comes down to internal EU matters it is in the end the EU countries that decide.  

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.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 07:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US accepts no equal partners.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 03:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to be on rysskräck to understand.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 05:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah in Norwegian we call it russerfrykt. ;)

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just remembered that Norway, like Poland, shares a border with Russia. That explains a lot.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 06:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It might do, but historically Norway have had excellent relations with Russia ever since the time of the Viking ages.  It was quite some concern over the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union just after 1945, with the communist takeover in many of the Eastern European countries, especially Czechoslovakia in 1948, and the forced agreement on Finland just after the war.  Norway got a similar offer from the Soviet Union, but declined.  This offer plus still having the German attack in 1940 in the back of their minds, made the Norwegian government turn to NATO for protection.  Norway had no national defense at the time only a well organized resistance movement to fall back on.  

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.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Tue May 15th, 2007 at 07:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, now I have two choices: "you're on rysskräck" and "would you like russerfrykt with that?".

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 04:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He, he.....life is full of choices.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed May 16th, 2007 at 09:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series