Why not make THE Twank the ET liaison with NATO?

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!

Trying to change NATO is a waste of time imo. It is from an Old World that no longer exists.

The Atlantic Community is somewhat different. Below is their mission list from their website. We might argue with the way the first mission is described, but not the rest. (I would hope). The list of founders, interns, movers and shakers includes former investment bankers, Accenture specialists and a wide variety of policy wonks. There doesn't appear to be an ideological pattern.

Here's what they say...

We seek to:

• Spread the message that today's transatlantic agenda is global: International challenges like terrorism, the energy crisis, and the rise of new powers in Asia demand a unified Western policy.

• Promote frank debates and collaboration between Europe and North America on issues of globalization and foreign policy.

• Cultivate and improve intellectual exchange across the Atlantic through increased networking opportunities between decision-makers, senior experts, as well as a new generation of students and future policy professionals.

• Promote and advance the future generation of decision-makers.

• Analyze foreign policy and the challenges of the twenty-first century in such a way that everybody can understand them. Our leitmotif is: Accessible Foreign Policy for Everybody!

You can't be me, I'm taken

Everyone needs to have a web 2.0 initiative to be cool, with it, and demonstrate a "pro-active" engagement with "Stakeholders".  Being a citizen of an avowedly neutral non member state I probably don't have "locus standi".

But perhaps it would be helpful to articulate why NATO membership is a non-starter in Ireland, even though we have close family links with the US and are probably more culturally well disposed to the US than most EU Member states.

Irish Neutrality arose out of our historic dispute with Britain.  Hundreds of thousands of Irishmen died fighting in Britain's wars but when the ultra-nationalist Sinn Fein (and later Fianna Fail) took power there was a determination not to side with "perfidious Albion" until such time as the partition of Ireland was addressed.

Churchill even suggested the possibility of an end to Partition (well sort-of) if Ireland joined in to WW2 but was simply not believed.  There had been too many instances of post-dated cheques not being honoured.  So De Valera remained neutral to the outrage of Churchill in particular and the British in general.  (In practice Ireland was as pro-allied as it was possible to be without actual formally joining the Allied war effort - interning captured German airmen, relaying intelligence and critical weather forecasts for D Day etc.)  

However De Valera retained formal neutrality to the extent of offering condolences to the German Ambassador on the death of Hitler - something strictly in line with diplomatic protocol - but also illustrating the degree of estrangement from anything to do with Britain.

Whilst the cold war was raging, having a bulwark against the USSR made sense for a conservative Catholic Ireland which regarded Stalin as the great Satan and where even a soccer match with the USSR caused controversy.  But taking the same side as Britain was simply not possible.

The Cold war was replaced by Pax Americana and for a period when Clinton was a hero because of his engagement in the Peace Process - NATO membership might have been a problematic issue only for a left wing fringe.  But then came Bush and Iraq - a war which 70% of the population opposed - many vehemently - and which inspired some of the largest anti-war demonstrations anywhere.  The traditional close Irish/US relations became as strained as they have ever been by extraordinary renditions and troop transfers through Shannon.  Joining NATO once again became a total non-starter.

So what is NATO now except a relic of the Cold War and of the US Empire.  A colonial relic to be taken over by the EU after its Eastern enlargement?  Why should the US be allowed to have military bases throughout Europe and to jeopardise relations with Russia through active encirclement and aggressive military domination?   The adventurism of the Georgian President: Mikheil Saakashvili in South Ossetia shows how easily the EU could be dragged into a conflict with Russia that is simply not in it collective interest.  NATO, from this perspective, now becomes a vehicle for "divide and conquer" stratagems by the US Military Industrial Complex perhaps not even fully under the control of Democratic institutions in Washington.

I appreciate that former Soviet Satellites and Warsaw Pact countries want a bulwark against Russian Hegemony and the fear of re-conquest may be real.  I also appreciate it will be a long time before the EU achieves a credibility and military cohesion and capability to replace the US as the guarantor of East European security.  But ultimately it is in the interst of the US Military Industrial Complex to seek to exacerbate divisions and divide and conquer within Europe.  Ultimately it is in the interest of the EU to maintain cordial relations with Russia, and perhaps even, ultimately, offer membership to Russia.

So whatever way you cut it is difficult to see a long term role for NATO in a Post Colonial Europe.  Ireland will not be joining, and perhaps a prolonged period of peace and good relations with Russia will lessen Eastern European fears and insecurities.  Perhaps NATO is aware of the tide of history moving away from it.  Perhaps they are desperately trying to think of new ways to maintain "relevance" by embracing web 2.0.  I don't think we should be giving that enterprise too much credibility.

notes from no w here

I wouldn't say anything.

I'd take notes about how that site is structured and make multiple copies of it, with views that compete with and critique it.

As usual, it's a very professional effort, and the open think tank idea is a masterstroke.

We've been rattling on about similar ideas for a couple of years now, and we haven't invented that. We probably should have.

The only consolation is that it looks a little too stiff and serious to be respectable in blog-ville. But the MSM will be loving it.

There's a big push on for a renewal of public diplomacy here in the US, possibly to bring back the USIA in some form or other. The argument goes that the intentions of the US are misunderstood, and that we need to get our voice out there.

In case you're wondering, the Atlantic Community is based in Berlin and claim to be dedicated to the same thing in Germany that I'd like to see done in the US: raising the level of debate in foreign policy, as well as to enhance Germany's prescence abroad. Which I have absolutely no objection to.

The Atlantic Community is a open access project (I'm signed up there though I have never contributed) of the Atlantic Initiative, whose board members are listed here. I don't know these people, so I've no idea of any overarching agenda. Can anyone help me out with this?

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

If we suggest NATO to self-dissolve, do you think they will listen to us?

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

I'd question the entire premise. NATO is fundamentally not supposed to be an active organisation - it's supposed to be a reactive organisation. Says so right there in Articles 1 and 5 of the NATO treaty.

Nowhere in this treaty is competence vested in any NATO bureaucracy to disseminate propaganda. At least not in any way I can decipher.

For that matter, nowhere in that treaty is competence vested in NATO to combat terrorism or other kinds of crime, except inasmuch as they pose a realistic threat to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a member state. (And while we're at it, as far as I can read, Article 1 of the NATO treaty outright outlaws the terror bombing of Serbia in '01. Buy hey, who's counting...)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

* Do you think NATO would benefit from engaging the blogosphere?

Probably not.

* Do you think bloggers have constructive advice for NATO's specific challenges?

Probably not any that NATO officials would likely listen to.

* How could NATO identify and listen to the discerning bloggers and their readers? What form should such an exchange of ideas take?

Well, NATO could start by, you know, reading the blogs and commenting.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

According to this page it is sponsored by the Stiftung Atlantik-Brücke, Daimler Chrysler AG, Boeing International, the German Marshall Fund, the Bundesverband der Volks- und Raifeissenbanken and the Bankhaus Löbbecke. In addition, the founders have put in some of their own capital.

It doesn't produce annual reports on its website. In general I find that American charities are much more transparent in that regard than European charities. That's probably a requirement by law, and the EU should address that issue.

Full disclosure: I write a blog with Joerg who works at the Atlantische Initiative and on the Atlantic Community. The blog is otherwise not affiliated with the Atlantische Initiative.

The problems you see with this were what leaped out at me too.

I've run into this before.  People who are part of a political organization suddenly becoming interested in blogs but it all boils down to ... how can we USE blogs and bloggers to influence their readers in the way we think is best?  This has nothing to do with direct and transparent dialogue any more than direct and transparent dialogue was the goal when political parties discovered that voters were on the other end of that new invention called the telephone and wondered how to use it for their purposes.

I think NATO should become the model for a military based upon defending the Solar Economy, using First Earth Battalion warrior-monks to defuse global tensions.

I also think they should spend 3 months here simply lurking, to understand what might be occurring in the real world, before they attempt a reasonable dialogue.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

I'd Call Drew J Jones a troll - except he's bang on. NATO has secret armies and is pursuing a land war in Asia which furthers the U.S. energy hegemony : something any European should be quite alarmed about.
Quite an agenda for a supposed treaty infringement reaction organization.
Public Diplomacy is something I see treated quite heavily at 'Mountain Runner'. I note Matt is adept at gaming the system for exposure - but likely right that diplomacy needs online attention. Unhappily, so does the fact that new sites are springing up already which have the imprint of our Lords and Masters' quislings on them. Comment threads in other countries are derailed by Reich-wing propagandists and provocateurs.
The UK, US, Australia, Canada and more are corrupted by the Global War of Terror - civil rights being a distant illusion. Anyone not knowing about Orwell needs to get up to speed.Ditto Overton Window.
There is a starter section on my links page, but PsyOps are worthy of special treatment.
http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links/
Watch for more indexes in Utilities category.


Opit's LinkFest! Samples from the Online Menu

While NATO is doubtless all the things said about it here in these excellent posts...and I feel the same as most all the writers. I have a bone to pick though.

For example, what Frank wrote was exactly right, except for the last line. Drew and others as well.

Who cares if they are astroturfing and dinosaurs. They have the spotlight. They have billions of money-units. Changing them 1% would affect the world.

Correct me if I am wrong Sven, but in marketing you don't go for the masses. You go for the opinion leaders. This adventure at NATO is or isn't going to reach their opinion leader(s), but as they say, you tilt for the Overton Window that you can reach.

No, NATO won't respond well to "Close Shop, give your budget to the poor." But what is within the realm of their jazz? What bright idea would they take and steal as their own? Or, when picked up by opinion leaders stopping by, what would we like to push?

There ain't no way that Obama is going to say, "Here, I'm busy this next few years and we're tired of your lame asses." What would make it easier for them USians to put less attention on this mechanism so they can gradually stop being the big boss without the wingnuts going shaky hand?

What would one say if 'they' were buying the first round of Caol Ila?

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland