Does NATO need to be improved militarily?

[Alyssa]

I am a 15 year old homeschooled debater in the NCFCA league, and as many of you know, the resolution this year is "NATO should be significantly reformed or abolished."

Now- with debate, we propose a plan to be enacted to make NATO a better place, or improve it somehow. This ranges from the removal of caveats, to disengagement from the UN, to severing the NRC [NATO-Russia Council], and so on. If you have absolutely ANY ideas on how NATO could be improved, please EMAIL me at [email protected].

But- I came for a rather interesting question. Through research, I have determined NATO needs a UN mandate to go on peace-keeping/humanitarian missions/anything other than Article 5 contingencies. This is shown through Article 53 of the UN Charter. In my debate case, I have to reform NATO. My partner and I are running disengagement from the UN. We don't believe Russia and China [members of UN's Security Council] should be in charge of NATO. They've vetoed NATO missions in the past for "trivial political reasons". But the thing is, I can only reform NATO, not the UN, nor it's Charter. Does anyone have any ideas as how to reform NATO [or the North Atlantic Treaty] so it does NATO have to obey Article 53 of the UN Charter?

I am in severe need of this- my partner and I have qualified and are going to Regionals in two weeks, and we need to find some way to do this.

If you have any ideas, comments, suggestions, or just want to talk, please email me at [email protected].

Thanks!

-Alyssa

 

[Mouse]

UN charter only works when NATO wants obeys it. There is no actual control from either Russia or China over NATO. Did UN give US go ahead in Iraq?

Correct me if I am wrong, I thought UN is only a place for melon-cutting.

 

[Alyssa]

Reply..

Yes- read Article 53 of the UN Charter. It basically says any regional organization must have a UN "okay" [or mandate] to go on any type of mission OTHER THAN self defense, which Iraq was. NATO's Article 5 [protection article] was invoked once and only with Iraq- NATO didn't need a UN mandate then. But for Yugoslavia/Kosovo, they did, and they chose not to get one, and broke "international law" [or Article 53 of the UN Charter].

 

[Alyssa]

UN charter only works when NATO wants obeys it. There is no actual control from either Russia or China over NATO. Did UN give US go ahead in Iraq?

Correct me if I am wrong, I thought UN is only a place for melon-cutting.

Oh, yeah- you may be thinking of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's views.. he believes the same thing. But the fact is, they have to follow international law. It's only the US who believes that a UN mandate ISN'T needed- the rest of NATO does. But that's what our debate case does- makes it so this mandate isn't needed.

 

[Mouse]

Ok, let me get this straight.

they have to follow international law.

Laws are no laws if law-enforcements have no intention to consider it as a law.

It's only the US who believes that a UN mandate ISN'T needed- the rest of NATO does.

Who would refuse if US wish to use their base for a little while. besides, I thought their were several countries went to Iraq....:unknown

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes- read Article 53 of the UN Charter. It basically says any regional organization must have a UN "okay" [or mandate] to go on any type of mission OTHER THAN self defense, which Iraq was. NATO's Article 5 [protection article] was invoked once and only with Iraq- NATO didn't need a UN mandate then. But for Yugoslavia/Kosovo, they did, and they chose not to get one, and broke "international law" [or Article 53 of the UN Charter].

IIRC Art 5 was not invoked for Iraq. Kosovo did get UN approval afterwards. A matter of timing. NATO knew it would get it.

 

[webmaster]

Hello Alyssa,

Welcome to Defencetalk!

Here is a related thread that may help you in your research/debate:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4911

Enjoy!

 

[Alyssa]

Ok, let me get this straight.


Laws are no laws if law-enforcements have no intention to consider it as a law.

Who would refuse if US wish to use their base for a little while. besides, I thought their were several countries went to Iraq....:unknown

There are law enforcements that enforce international law. Check out the international law websites. Yugoslavia violated international law by committing genocide. They were punished, in a UN resolution.

Kosovo was an illegal mission without the Yugoslavian or UN mandate. But UN didn't punish NATO for breaking international law, considering Kosovo was successful and saved many lives, and the fact Yugoslavia broke international law in the first place.

Iraq was an Article 5 mission- NATO didn't need a UN mandate, because international law allows for defense missions without a UN mandate.

 

[Waylander]

Iraq is not a NATO mission!

 

[swerve]

Iraq is not a NATO mission!

Maybe Alyssa is confusing Iraq & Afghanistan?

 

[Alyssa]

Maybe Alyssa is confusing Iraq & Afghanistan?

Yes I am and sorry for the confusion. =D

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok.

cheers

 

[riksavage]

The following article titled ‘The Germans Should Learn How to Kill’ appeared in De Spiegel magazine and exemplifies the current problems associated with unreasonable caveats and pacifist pressures at home. I never really appreciated the hand-wringing in Germany until I read this article.

What it also clearly demonstrates is the ‘open hostility’ which is now emerging between those countries fighting and the ones operating under tight restrictions.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html

If you take the view of the article seriously the future of NATO looks increasing bleak as tempers continue to fray. Should Germany heed the call from the left and withdraw all together, then I can not see NATO surviving. Iraq is one thing Afghanistan is another and remains a NATO obligation.

 

[Falstaff]

Well, that's an old article. Perhaps you know that three days ago three German soldiers were killed in Kunduz, 4 were wounded by a suicide attack.
My thoughts are with their families and friends.

Now the talking starts again. But one thing is made clear by the government and most opposition leaders: We won't withdraw because we want to help the Afghani people. The Bundeswehr leadership and the soldiers strongly believe in the mission.
I guess it's a natural reaction that talking starts as soon as something like this happens.

 

[Waylander]

Jup, besides the left party (Ah, I could puke everytime I see Lafontaine on TV ) and some lonely lefties from other parties nobody cries for a withdrawal from A-stan.

And there are also politicians and (more often) proffessionals who call for a more agressive and active role of our troops in A-stan.
But I doubt that this will happen before the next decision about the ISAF mission in parliament.

My thoughts are with our dead and wounded comrades as well as with their families and friends!

 

[Falstaff]

Jup, besides the left party (Ah, I could puke everytime I see Lafontaine on TV )

That guy is such a populistic dumbass!:lul

 

[kato]

nobody cries for a withdrawal from A-stan.

Well, the DBwV (soldiers' union) has called for a "change in strategy" (while at the same time saying they explicitly do not suggest a withdrawal). In particular, they're calling for a more "gentle" approach in the South (explicitly naming US Forces and high collateral damage). And the DBwV does have some serious lobbying power.
See this Deutsche Welle article and the official DBwV statement (in German).

To get back on topic:
NATO (as an organization) is primarily a defensive organization (mutual defense of members), which is the only thing the charter is about. There has so far only been one NATO combat (!) engagement covered by the charter, and that was/is Afghanistan, under Article 5, backed by UN Charter Article 51 (self-defence).
NATO members do not need a UN mandate for peacekeeping/humanitarian missions if invited by the local government that they recognize. This covers e.g. operations in Bosnia independantly from the UN, as well as e.g. NATO member engagements in various African nations like Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Djibouti and Kongo.
In order to have NATO (as an organization) do operations not covered by UN 51, you'd have to rewrite the NATO charter almost entirely.

 

[Waylander]

Mmmmh, the DBwV sometimes makes some very dubious statements.
On the one hand saying that the guys in the south should limit their bombing operations but on the other side being against operating with troops in the south.

Many of these bombing missions are required because there are much too less boots on the ground in the south.

All these talking of german politicians as well as of the DBwV is sometimes dishonest.
If we know so much better how the situation in the south should be changed why don't we go there and do it?
And all this talking about the evil americans. As if our allies who also fight in the south (Brits, Canucks, Dutch, Danes, etc.) are all warmongers and do this for fun.
Interesting to see that our government has no problems to send the KSK which fought its way through Tora Bora and was under the first boots on the ground in A-stan but doesn't want normal combat companies do their jobs.

We have also no problems to lease the Canucks some of our Leopard IIA6Ms. Would it really be a problem to send our own boys to drive them?

 

[kato]

Mmmmh, the DBwV sometimes makes some very dubious statements.
On the one hand saying that the guys in the south should limit their bombing operations but on the other side being against operating with troops in the south.

Note their lobbying power however:
In interviews today (search google news), Defence Minister Jung promptly adopts the positions the DBwV states in that article, especially with regard to a "we'll have to talk to the Americans about their strategy and tactics in the South".

We have also no problems to lease the Canucks some of our Leopard IIA6Ms. Would it really be a problem to send our own boys to drive them?

Purely on a capability level (of the personnel): mmm, my own Bundeswehr service time was 8 years ago, but going by the people around me back then? Hell yes it would be a problem. And that's considering all officers and NCOs in my company did (multiple) tours, including a few of them to Somalia.

 

[Falstaff]

Note their lobbying power however:
In interviews today (search google news), Defence Minister Jung promptly adopts the positions the DBwV states in that article, especially with regard to a "we'll have to talk to the Americans about their strategy and tactics in the South".

That's his position for quite a few days as can be read at GeoPowers (headline: "Minister Jung: vorsätzlich?") dated 15th of May already. Read the blog-link too!