RSS

April 2, 2009

Michael Schmidt

Hoop Scheffer just said that NATO was always and still is all about defending universal values.
The young generation now has to continue that support NATO to defend those values.

Well, I think this focus on values is misguided.

NATO's rason d'etre was and is collective defense of its members.

It's not about promoting values like human rights, freedom and democracy in far away countries. That's why the Afghanistan war is so unpopular. Most citizen do not want to see their sons and daughters die for promoting the quality of life in non-member countries like Afghanistan.

If NATO would like to get more popular support, then it has to frame the Afghanistan war as a matter of security for us, i.e. highlighting the threats from Afghanistan for us. But that is difficult. Because, to be honest: The insurgents in Afghanistan, which are all lumped together as "Taliban" by our stupid media, are not a threat for the people living in NATO countries. Al Qaeda has gone global and does not need Afghanistan.

April 2, 2009

Susanne Meier, , (9)

@ Michael,

I agree with you. Moreover the Secretary General said that NATO should not play a role in the Iran issue. I think that is irresponsible. If Iran develops the nuclear bomb and continues its long range missile programs, then they pose a big threat for NATO.

The EU-3 approach towards Iran has not been successful, and I doubt whether Obama will get anywhere. NATO should get involved. NATO should also make military contingency plans because the threat from Iran is real and it is growing.

April 2, 2009

Susanne Meier, , (9)

Good point by the Secretary General on the need to for common funding of missions rather than this unfair principle that every country has to finance their participation in NATO missions alone.

Common finance will solve some burden sharing problems, as it would allow those countries that are most hesitant to send troops to at least contribute with money

April 3, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVP, Diamond Contributor (1090)

@Michael
Surely, there is no such thing as "universal values". NATO should not be about "universal values", it should be about the values that were the cornerstone of western, liberal democracy, such as free elections, personal liberty, individual dignity of a person, rule of law and freedom of speech. The military might that NATO embodies should be there to protect and defend these values, countries which share them and people who live in those countries. This is the core of the alliance, nothing less, nothing more. As to promotion of these values beyond the mandate area - it is a matter for debate.

April 4, 2009

Hans Reuther-Fix

Let's stopt this NATO melo-drama.
When General Patton after WWII requested to recruit the rest of the German Army to join the US-Army in defeating the Red Army it alomost sounds
like the NATO General Secretary with his defending of " universal values "
as the assignment for NATO or simply " we are right and they are wrong".
BUT isn't the severe economic crisis we are finding ourselves in, not a revelation of our real values, which deserves a re-evalution as to the purpose of NATO?

Yes, Communism as a method of governance is finished and so is the age
of nuclear destruction. NATO is not in the business of nation building.
The purpose of NATO, obviously under US-Command, was to implement
the Marshall plan, keep the Russian at bay and control any re-armament
of the axis, especially the Germans.

The recent G20 meeting in London gathered around the nucleus of the
G2 ( China and the USA ) in an atmosphere of economic cooperation,
fully understanding that one can not exist by itself.
With that, a civilized free market system wii prevail in an environment
of cooperation, not ( military )confrontation.
Therefore there is a need for an appropriate jusdification for NATO,
but not by veterans of the cold war or beyond, but by a generation who understands that there will be a new world order..

One may now asked the question, why then are we still maintaining
a military super power structure and yes, with NATO as its extension force?
Mr. NATO General secretary, that is the question!

HRF

April 6, 2009

Lawrence Ben EFANA, Åbo Akademi Univ., Helsinki Univ., Tampere Univ., etc. , (8)

When you are a witness to an occasion as nice as the one we all had opportunity to witness, you cannot just go directly to the key issues of the occasion without first candidly sharing the joy of being so lucky to have been a part witnessing it all!

The exclusive "Video Livefeed" on the occasion of the NATO Youth Forum in Strasbourg, April 2-3, 2009, was nicely programed and fitting for the occasion. Its technology will surely carry the internet plan to put NATO endeavors into proper light, more-so in a fast changing world of 'near' and 'far' challenges - all of which the Transatlantic Community Organization is directly and indirectly sensitive to.

There were many spectacular moments parallel to the Youth Forum: the celebration of NATO's 60th Anniversary, and the presence of member-countries' top functionaries and Heads of States - especially the new US President and his Team]. I do not know if others also noted other exhilarating details and scenes the way I did. That is, to draw attention to the lovely German - the host country] environment. Nothing was so touching as the 'natural' background songs one heard from the birds in the German Spring weather. The birds were already singing before arrival of the main guest: President Obama, etc.], and before the Military Band started playing to the "Guard of Honor Inspection" tune, when the German Chancellor and her "August" guest on the red carpet, walked freely but to the soft tune inspecting the guard and taking the salute - after which the real anniversary began.

Noting details is important. We humans enjoy details because they sometimes relax us, are culturally and traditionally entertaining and educative - a process helping fertilization and reproduction. That is, allowing us understand patterns as we see them and beyond that form our values as to whether or not they can be maintained or modified. 'You' might be a 'pacifist and God-fearing', but military ceremonies are extraordinarily entertaining and quite softening to the soul also. We certainly felt the senses of these explicitly and implicitly well demonstrated during the anniversary. All about NATO cannot be about "hard talks and strategy-build-ups". NATO is about a 'blend' of issues and like everything else in the life we have learned to live to-date, there are the 'soft' and the 'hard' parts. So thanks to those witty and bold enough to work for balance as one of the ultimate challenges of our time.

Returning to the Youth Forum deliberations is important at this point. Reason: it was like a classroom! The three Panels/panelists after Plenary Session "warm-ups" and the-all-too important role of the Moderators, with the audience spread in the background. All particles: the classroom 'sum'!

The deliberations of the "sum" implicitly defined, draw attention to many issues, some of which when reconstructed focus on:
1) The caution hence the care to heed when projecting NATO for 2020 not far from now
2) The need to safeguard/link NATO with democratic, economic and moral values
3) The challenge of having to remain active in balancing its military and political roles
4) The need to invest in security and development and competition and complementarity
5) The need to accept open debate: Should or not NATO act as the Global Police? UN?
6) Threat scenarios, transatlantic succession generation - peace is worth fighting for!
7) Security as extended definable issue: Cyberwar, Climate change, Russia in Europe!
8) Lessons from the birth of Nato in mid 1940s, the Marshall Plan, European history!
9) The North Atlantic Space definition, alliance values, conflict/terrorism challenges!
10) Enough military force to back-up civil process, Military Keynesian risks/peace-chance

It is not the best way to abstract the complex and often unique but interrelated and or cross-cutting issues. At the same time as a list it should serve well. The issues and many more, for example, relations to China, Iran, the state of prisoners dilemma characteristic of the Afghanistan and Pakistani war angling Iraq too, the UN and NGOs, Georgia and Ukraine, the Balkans and no less in these days "employment" questions for young and I suppose old "Atlanticists" in Europe. Thinking of Europe and its potentially destructive 'war history', it was rather relieving to see how engaged the professionals and youths were on the theme of stabilizing working relationship with Russia by bridging to neutralize the "psychological divide". Here it was particularly impressive to see how the soon outgoing NATO Secretary General affirmatively took care of the curiosity of young Georgians and Ukrainians, at the same time as he emphasized the need to be realistic in doing all but follow the peace and responsible not 'rash' road and actions! You could in a response of the kind feel please with firm explanations projecting the supposedly "shared" ideals, simultaneously as you also feel the sense of curbing sentiments fueling misguided nationalistic drives in the name of NATO - which could be threatening for conflict management, curtailment hence usurp peace chances. In this respect, the return of France to NATO, and experience of the Georgian/Russian war, raise hope and people are happy.

While it was exciting to follow discussants (panelists) capped in I, under the theme: "The World in 2020: Defining the Future Security Environment", for me all that seemed quite familiar. Easy to see how they crosscut issues in the "itemized" focus, even if the cross-cutting angles are not regular! Frankly, discussants [panelists] capped in II, under the theme "A Changing International Landscape: What to Expect from NATO?", equally all-embracing though, wooed attention. Discussants in this panel were less philosophical and more pragmatic compared to aspects of the first panelists. I find its discussants well fit slotting into two balance groups: (a) Relatively defenders of the "status-quo" zones - Edward Lucas and Irina Kobrinskaya, versus (b) the pragmatists but relatively empiricists and analysts: Ahmed Rashid and Ari Vatanen. Both of the latter were frank, straight on issues, open, predictive and suggestive. On the 'predictive' dimension, their insights to problems, risks associated and arrays of solution in so far as NATO is concerned, and in so far as the problems in most cases are as interwoven - though sometimes individual as they are at local transatlantic, EU, UN, etc., levels], offered ways forward premised on 'effective' diplomacy matched by "informed" actions. The Moderator of this panel was just perfect for the job of picking and connecting the audience and their questions to the right panelist for responses.

The third panel chaired by author of the article on "Public diplomacy" as one of the ways out for the NATO, centered on "The Young Generation and NATO's Communication Policy: Public Opinion, Public Messaging and the Use of the New Technologies". The timing of this panel overlapped with the arrival of NATO's Heads of States and subsequent program welcoming them for the anniversary. Deliberations and discussants' inputs, one could not follow because of the for the anniversary ceremonies. However, there is no doubt that the "Video Livefeed" success in itself is enough to speak for the trends and plans surrounding the moves to project NATO under the theme Stefanie Babst chaired.

One of the ways I think it is possible to add to the endeavors, is to look back tracking some 'valuables' of the "warm-up session", and those of the 1st and 2nd panels. Obviously that is to be done individually by commentators. And for what we know they are of various styles and intensities. I only want to end my comment stating that the "valuables" - of this "Youth Forum", if one would conceptualize it that way, could be coordinated with the help of a method addressed otherwise in some circles as "Tallying". What is it? It is a technique for refining "creative" ideas so that the "wild" in them can be tamed without losing the unique 'newness' that sets them apart. The goal is to refine those that are more acceptable by thinking of ways to overcome the concerns that they have with them. 'Tallying' in context of the proceedings of this forum, could be a follow-up boldly inviting working to: identify and select - pick out all that we have 'heard' about NATO 2020, which though are qualified are not without traits of generated improbable ideas, simultaneously listing supposed benefits they would bring should they be probable. It is a mental as well as research engagement Young Atlantists can benefit - partially about 'loading' but 'reducing' certain paradoxes.

The essence is helping to list out the most critical concerns harbored: reservations], about the ideas. Nevertheless, note that the goal is not to do away with them but to perform one or the other form of surgery hence attempt to overcome the defects. A hard act it is, but the purpose is, and will go along way to open as many ways as possible to see the "issues" and "options", thereby simplifying the critical concerns harbored or identified. Perhaps at the end it would be possible to detect the extent that by modifying and or combining ideas, possibilities to produce new insights, overcome troubling concerns or make ideas more workable open-up or offer themselves. Will steps like this maximize chances of coming with truly new insights while systematically avoiding routine ruts. Prospecting for NATO in 2020 and thinking about the succeeding generation of 'transatlanticists' means leaving no single stone unturned, while all has to be done in good spirit mindful of GRACE. It should boil down: to given the benefits of doubt, systems reform themselves with time and indeed for that Youth Forum activities of the kind just ending are an asset of hope to work for a more enduring peace, progress and local/global interdependence.