Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
This is a discussion on Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India? within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Was quite surprised when i read this. Any opinions?
Personally, i think australia and japan are already de facto nato ...
Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
Was quite surprised when i read this. Any opinions?
Personally, i think australia and japan are already de facto nato members but am not very sure about india or israel joining.
LONDON - REPUBLICAN presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani urged Nato to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore on Wednesday as part of proposals to combat Islamic extremism.
Speaking to a US-British conservative group in London, Mr Giuliani said Britain and the United States must stand side-by-side in tackling Islamic terrorism.
'This is no time for defeatism and appeasement,' he said.
Among his proposals for the United States and Britain to take the lead in the fight against Islamic extremism, Mr Giuliani urged the two countries to push for an expansion of Nato into a global body.
'We should open the organisation's membership to any willing state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness (and) global responsibility, regardless of location,' he said.
'I think we should consider countries such as Australia, Singapore, India, Israel, Japan ... and there are probably a whole group of others that we could put on that list,' he said.
The defence alliance has expanded in recent years but its current membership is 26 countries in North America and Europe. -- REUTERS
Australia is to sign a security pact with NATO but has not asked to be nor has it been invited to be a full member.
Quote:
David Nason, New York correspondent | September 22, 2007
AUSTRALIA will sign a treaty with NATO in a move that will boost security and intelligence ties and assist the evolution of the 60-year-old Cold War alliance of democracies into a global force.
The treaty is due to be signed in New York next week by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Australia is officially a NATO "contact country", but the expression does not cover the depth of the relationship, which has strengthened considerably since Diggers deployed in Afghanistan began operating under NATO command two years ago.
A spokesman for Mr Downer said yesterday the treaty would give Australia access to NATO security assessments, including those on international terrorism, and to operational matters affecting Australian Defence Force personnel.
He said the document would go before parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for final ratification.
The treaty breakthrough comes a week after Defence Minister Brendan Nelson criticised the NATO countries for failing to carry their share of the military burden in Afghanistan. Dr Nelson said NATO's deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan was unacceptable, given that it had more than two million troops under its command.
In New York, UN ambassador Robert Hill, a former defence minister in the Howard Government, said closer ties with NATO were clearly in Australia's best interests.
"As NATO has looked to operations outside its original geographic area of responsibility -- particularly as it has sought to play a part in addressing global challenges such as the terrorist threat -- we have a vested interest in getting closer to NATO," Mr Hill said.
"We have shared values -- they obviously have an established and ongoing military capability, and for the first time we have gone into an operation under NATO leadership.
"In conjunction with that, we have sought to build the mechanisms to enable adequate sharing of intelligence and interactive ability in operations."
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created in post-war Western Europe to guard against the threat of Soviet expansion. But since the collapse of communism, NATO has extended its geographic reach and the range of its operations.
In recent years, NATO has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, been involved in training security forces in Iraq, providing logistical support to the African Union mission in Darfur, and assisting in tsunami, hurricane and earthquake relief operations in Indonesia, New Orleans and Pakistan respectively.
Mr Downer said last October Australia would develop interoperability with NATO forces. This was to include the sharing of classified information and training in how to respond to a "dirty bomb" attack.
But Mr Downer rejected the idea that Australia should become a full member of NATO, saying that geography and Australia's significant regional commitments meant it could be difficult to service a formal membership arrangement with the military alliance. That position had not changed, the minister's spokesman said.
Mr Hill said yesterday it was uncertain how the Australian-NATO relationship would evolve in the future.
"There hasn't been a suggestion from either side that Australia should join as a full member," he said.
"But both sides see an interest in Australia working more closely with NATO and participating in certain operations with NATO, as we are in Afghanistan."
This looks to be a common sense approach to me as Australia has been co-operating with NATO for a some time and in recent years has been contributing to a NATO sponsored force.
Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Last edited by Tasman; September 24th, 2007 at 10:49 PM.
Agree with you on the aussie bit but don't you think india and israel joining nato as kind of weird?
The india part is probably to counter china but if nato do that, i won't be surprised if china, russia, indonesia etc form a "warsaw pact" to counter it.
Definitely not what the world need.
Btw, just realised that i had a typo in the thread name, should be "should nato include" rather than "nato should". Apologies to all.
From the Australian perspective......I understand that there have been overtures made at various times for our membership of NATO. Obviously there are sound reasons for rejecting such a proposition (geography, regional effects etc).
In relation to the Israeli inclusion into NATO..........this would anger a lot of Moderate Arab nations that currently support ongoing operations (Even Moderates like to see better treatment of some Arab issues - Palestinian cause etc). It is purely a cosmetic issue in many ways though, as the Israelis already support, and are provided support, through partnerships with NATO members.
Singapore......this could be interesting. Does make sense, but only if NATO transfers to a Western Alliance (in terms of operating policy, rather than Continental and trans-Atlantic defence) and geography issues are scrapped. Probably of more use within East Asia, rather than inter-regionally.
Japan....much the same as Singapore (but with legitimately global interests), but obviously Article 9 of the Constitution will be an issue. This would require fully fledged international security citizenship recognition that some are still worried about (Text Books, Comfort Women etc).
India.....hmmm....I must confess that I have some trouble coming to terms with an Indian inclusion within the NATO structure. I am not convinced that there are sufficient common interests to motivate their inclusion. I do see India as an importance counter-balance to China. However, NATO is not an "Containment of China" pact....
Rudy Guiliani should maybe read the treaty sometime.
It explicitly says that it'll only affect members' territories on the European and North American continents as well as in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
And unless every single NATO member agrees, that won't change.
LONDON - REPUBLICAN presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani urged Nato to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore on Wednesday as part of proposals to combat Islamic extremism.
We have very good cooperation from the five countries mentioned in combating terrorism, Is there a need to include them into Nato to better combat terrorism?
Rudy Guiliani should maybe read the treaty sometime.
It explicitly says that it'll only affect members' territories on the European and North American continents as well as in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
And unless every single NATO member agrees, that won't change.
I can't see a need to change much. Aust is already on some of the major distribution lists anyway - all it would do is formalise and open up some of those existing "shares"
if it comes off its a plus, if it doesn't, c'est la vie.....
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
NATO was designed as an alliance to fight conventional wars against the USSR (Russia) & its allies. It's tried to re-invent itself of late, but with only partial success.
This would mean, as has been pointed out, that NATO would have to cease being NATO & become something else, & that would require the assent of every single current member (though Iceland might vote to let Japan in, because of whaling policy ). Does anyone think that complete re-invention realistic?
Another problem is one that Mr. Giuliani apparently hasn't considered. Would they want to join? Who can envisage India committing troops to protect Turkey from Russia, for example? Other countries would have their own difficulties, e.g. Japan would have to amend its arms export laws & its constitution. It's had to be stretched just to allow Japan to defend itself. Would Australia be willing to promise to defend French Pacific islands & Mayotte?
BTW, it would imply the USA throwing away the Monroe Doctrine, since a world-wide extension of NATO would stretch it to the British, French & Dutch territories in the Americas, which were for the most part deliberately excluded from the scope of NATO.
I can't see a need to change much. Aust is already on some of the major distribution lists anyway - all it would do is formalise and open up some of those existing "shares"
if it comes off its a plus, if it doesn't, c'est la vie.....
To include Australia fully into NATO (ie. including mutual-defense, or as a full member at all) would require pretty much rewording the entire Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty. Article 6 (application area) was last changed in 1951 - though the change, accomodating Turkey, was already "pre-written" in the original protocols in 1949.
Also, Article 10 would be violated in its current form: "The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State [...] to accede to this Treaty".
NATO has a couple projects for cooperation with states outside the member circle, and Australia is part of some of those.
Thats true , I just can't see any of those country's becoming a part of NATO , and especialy not Israel or India , thats just ridicilous , India is besides everything else more likely to join SCO and has alot of projects with Russia currently not only BrahMos and aviation tehnology but they recently signed for alot of future projects at hand.
I don't see what Israel would gain joining NATO exept negative reactions from some nations , Israel already has support from most NATO members including the United States.
The most likely country that could join NATO from these would be Japan but as I said already , only the most likely from these country's and im sure it won't happen , besides Japan has close relations with the west.
Would Australia be willing to promise to defend French Pacific islands & Mayotte?
just as a small aside, aust and france renewed and modified their existing maritime treaty in 2005. we now have personnel on each others protection vessels, and the agreement is that either nation can act as a hot pursuit asset in the case of enforcing our respective maritime protection requirements.
but, I cannot see France letting Israel into NATO as there is still some lingering memories on both sides over the Mirage and Patrol Boat affairs.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; September 26th, 2007 at 07:45 AM.
Reason: sp
The answer is in the first few words of the quoted report i.e. "presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani..." etc. If you have been following the Republican presidental candidate reports, mostly they, Giuliani especially, have been playing up their "get tough on terrorism" credentials, so as to be the natural successors to the current administration etc. What Guiliani has been quoted as saying in this report is a nonsense. The US is taking the lead against terrorism, the US and the UK are already cooperating etc, countries like Australia, Japan and I think Singapore have an unofficial affiliation with Nato (good timely post there Tasman) etc.
There's no need to make Nato a weapon against terrorism in that Nato's purpose is to deter and fight conventional wars etc. As people here have said, not every country will agree (and look at the trouble that Nato endured a couple of years ago as not all Nato countries wanted to committ significant combat forces into Afghanistan).
Frankly if Nato were to become an entity dedicated to fighting radical fundamentalism then if anything the fundamentalists would gain more propaganda value claiming the west and its christians are hell bent on destroying muslims etc. The answer to solving the fundamentalism problem is political (with some military muscle) not purely military force.
Last edited by recce.k1; September 25th, 2007 at 01:26 PM.
We have very good cooperation from the five countries mentioned in combating terrorism, Is there a need to include them into Nato to better combat terrorism?
i am not too sure it will help combat terrorism by letting japan and india join.
australia can help in troops as it is currently doing, singapore is important due to its position on the world map, israel, well, it can assist it targeted killing of terrorists.
furthermore, it will definetly send a message to MOST muslims that NATO's new objective is to combat islamic extremists=new alliance against Islam.
but but but... the extremists do not represent Islam as they so often proclaim, so how could an alliance formed to defeat terrorists be an alliance against Islam?
). Does anyone think that complete re-invention realistic?
