The EU does not define itself by "ethnicity" but by territory. Same goes for NATO.
Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
- Thread starter levathan
- Start date
... but it won't. And that's a good thing.That can change...
In NATO's case (i think i stated it earlier?), the very treaty that defines NATO in the first place sets down the exact definition of treaty area. Unchanged since conception.
As for the EU... it took us long enough to get to the Treaty of Nice, k?
Which interprets "European" as meaning "in Europe" as in "on the continent Europe" about 500 times through the document :shudder
And it's a good thing because both EU and NATO are bogged down enough as it is. The EU already has significant problems getting anything done because of its "periphery". No need to add more states to that periphery.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
NATO’s relations with Contact Countries
Full text at http://www.nato.int/issues/contact_countries/index.html
Quote:
In addition to its formal partnerships, NATO cooperates with a range of countries that are not part of these structures. Referred to as Contact Countries, they typically share similar strategic concerns and key Alliance values. Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand are all examples of Contact Countries.
These countries have expressed an interest in deepening relations with NATO, or simply wish to be informed of NATO’s agenda. Some are troop contributors to NATO-led operations or contribute to these operations in another way. Others simply seek to cooperate with NATO in areas of common interest.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My edit note: As mentioned by others earlier a number of non-Nato countries are already "contact countries" (explanation above etc). As the news releases posted by Tasman and GF0012-Aust a few weeks earlier shows, Australia is signing another treaty agreement with Nato. Thus is seems to me this is how it works, obvioulsy Australia and other countries are happy with adding to the relationship as circumstances warrant, rather than simply wanting or needing to join up as a full member (not that it would appear to be possible even if Australia and others wanted to).
Full text at http://www.nato.int/issues/contact_countries/index.html
Quote:
In addition to its formal partnerships, NATO cooperates with a range of countries that are not part of these structures. Referred to as Contact Countries, they typically share similar strategic concerns and key Alliance values. Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand are all examples of Contact Countries.
These countries have expressed an interest in deepening relations with NATO, or simply wish to be informed of NATO’s agenda. Some are troop contributors to NATO-led operations or contribute to these operations in another way. Others simply seek to cooperate with NATO in areas of common interest.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
My edit note: As mentioned by others earlier a number of non-Nato countries are already "contact countries" (explanation above etc). As the news releases posted by Tasman and GF0012-Aust a few weeks earlier shows, Australia is signing another treaty agreement with Nato. Thus is seems to me this is how it works, obvioulsy Australia and other countries are happy with adding to the relationship as circumstances warrant, rather than simply wanting or needing to join up as a full member (not that it would appear to be possible even if Australia and others wanted to).
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Greg would you really want to get dragged into annother bloody european war anyway??? Haven't we paid enough australian blood for european freedom??? ANZUS will do.
FutureTank
Banned Member
What 'another' European war?!
In any case, we are in one anyway, so we may as well be treated equally, which is my thinking.
There are other defence considerations also.
What European war is that? I can't think of any going on at the moment, let alone any in which Australia is involved. Asian wars, now - that's a different matter.
FutureTank
Banned Member
The one that Russians begun, North Americans prolonged, and West and Central Europeans are trying to end in Afghanistan.What European war is that? I can't think of any going on at the moment, let alone any in which Australia is involved. Asian wars, now - that's a different matter.
Asian wars will be like WW2, but MUCH worse. I am rather thankful of the distance between Australia any anything remotely threatening, and rather hoping that in the next 10-15 years we may want to develop and install an anti-ballistic system...wishful thinking probably.
Let us assume for a moment that the EU countries collectively decide to define themselves by culture & history, so as to include settler states outside Europe, & that those settler states accept this definition & wish to join.
Any workable & internally consistent definition would imply that Europe rejects those people from outside Europe who have settled within it (note: that includes some of my family), & that the settler states (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Argentina, Uruguay, etc) do the same, & also reject their own indigenous populations. Sydney Chinatown, which I remember well from when I lived next to it, would suddenly become "un-Australian", as would much of Redfern, & the little Korean enclave near where I worked in Chatswood, while the cluster of Spanish restaurants around the social club near the western end of Liverpool Street would become the epitome of European Australianness. Maori wouldn't qualify: they'd be foreigners in their own country. Etc., etc.
Do you really want to live in that sort of society? I don't. Once you start down that road, where do you stop? There are real horrors at the end.
And that's probably far enough in this direction.
Ah, so it's a European war if anyone from Europe takes part, not if it's a war in Europe. So if we offered you help in a conflict with Indonesia, it would be a European war. Hmm. Interesting definition - which I reject.
battlensign
New Member
Ah "Reductio ad absurdum"...........well that is definately an interesting perspective. I am in total agreement with the pucture you are painting, however, I do not believe that it is cause to believe that the opposite is true. There is no reason to believe that the balance of European States would be comfortable with direct military support for these contact countries as a result of some modification to the definition of what is and is not "European". Some select countries might (such as the UK in the case of Australia etc), but the balance would still face significant political issues.
Brett.
let me explain, if a muslim country forms an alliance with a non-muslim country on the expense of another muslim nation, in this case it is un-islamic. also if such an alliances influences the muslim traditions, muslims are always supposed to favour muslims over non-muslims, however, it is perfectly fineto be in alliances which have a global agenda[such as combating terrorism, human trafficing etc] and do not interfere with domestic islamic affairs[such as the EU which does have a small but significant influence].
about your secind question, well, i am not too sure about the situation in the middle east, i have lived in saudi arabia for 5 years and there is a mixed picture about the issue, put in pakistan, which is my home country, majority of the public is suspicious of the west and do not support the war on terror, only the rich and the political elite are supportive.
i hope i answered yr queries,
Mr Ignorant
New Member
A possibility now. But I don't think the Americans need to include these countries into any alliance, politically the world can cope with most security situations.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I agree since I know where this will go, and rather not have to be told by a moderator.
I will however be a European to my dying days regardless of what the Australian Government may wish to believe about Australia's place in the World.
Nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage. My partner will remain forever Japanese & proud of her samurai ancestors, & I wouldn't have it otherwise.
NATO is a region-specific organisation currently. Whether that will change in the future, is anyone's guess. Though I reckon she will stay Atlantic-centric in nature due to the security dynamics that have kept NATO together in the first place.I really hope AUSTRALIA will get into NATO.I dont even now why she was not included in the first place.She fought the war against the NAZIS.A very good ally of the USA.
A country that fought terrorism in IRAQ.
Thres no reason why she shouldnt enter NATO
If and when the EU comes up with a framework for a regional military command, then and only then NATO might have to reassess her role and relevance.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Its all connected you know....North Atlantic, South Pacific, same water really
Seriously though, I accept the reasons given for halting expansion of NATO in Europe. It will be interesting when time comes to admit Russia though
Have you read any of what has already been posted? And do you really know so little of history?I really hope AUSTRALIA will get into NATO.I dont even now why she was not included in the first place.She fought the war against the NAZIS.A very good ally of the USA.
A country that fought terrorism in IRAQ.
Thres no reason why she shouldnt enter NATO
NATO was nothing whatsoever to do with who had, & had not, fought in WW2. It started with an alliance of European countries, called the Western European Union, to defend W. Europe from the USSR. The WEU members & the USA & Canada soon afterwards (some reckon as a result of the USA deciding it would rather not have a W. European alliance acting independently of the USA) formed NATO, with other European states soon joining. Since Australia wasn't involved in the defence of W. Europe against a possible Soviet invasion, it had no possible role in either of these organisations.
Australias participation in WW2 was nothing to do with being a US ally, but to do with being part of the Commonwealth. Australia joined in the war two years before the USA.