Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

[swerve]

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.

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.

1. I agree.

2. The EU has a framework for a regional military command. But it's under-resourced, & floundering around looking for a role, as most of what it might do is already done by NATO. If the USA ever decided to cut its military ties with Europe, then I would expect the EU command to take over NATOs European role immediately.

 

[kato]

If the USA ever decided to cut its military ties with Europe, then I would expect the EU command to take over NATOs European role immediately.

And not even badly. Both the EUMS (EU Military Committee) and the EUMS (EU Military Staff) have already been created, and EUMS with 200+ personnel has technical command over the EU BGs (via the BGCC). EUMS is liaised with NATO, and a planning coordination cell has been created with NATO SHAPE.

With regard to NATO structures in Europe, a lot of these are paralleled within the WEU or the EU along multinational bilateral ties, and could be pretty much directly transferred. This goes e.g. for Eurocorps (WEU/NATO), NATO MNC East, or NATO 1 (GE/NL) Corps.

The WEU agencies have largely dissolved btw, and have been replaced with EU agencies such as EDA, EUISS, EUSC and so on.

 

[swerve]

...

With regard to NATO structures in Europe, a lot of these are paralleled within the WEU or the EU along multinational bilateral ties, and could be pretty much directly transferred. This goes e.g. for Eurocorps (WEU/NATO), NATO MNC East, or NATO 1 (GE/NL) Corps.

The WEU agencies have largely dissolved btw, and have been replaced with EU agencies such as EDA, EUISS, EUSC and so on.

IIRC the WEU merged itself into the EU military structure several years ago. The membership overlapped almost completely. I think in many cases, it was just a case of changing the signs outside offices & the headings on the notepaper. If NATO ever dissolved, I would expect the same to happen with its military structure in Europe: parallel branches would merge, EU citizens in NATO posts would carry on doing the same things but under the aegis of the EU, & the EU military administration would suddenly gain an awful lot of offices, staff, & assigned military forces.

 

[kato]

IIRC the WEU merged itself into the EU military structure several years ago. The membership overlapped almost completely. I think in many cases, it was just a case of changing the signs outside offices & the headings on the notepaper.

Not at all. Only ten states are/were members of the WEU. All other EU members had associate status (per definition), all other European NATO members had observer status (per definition).

The WEU still nominally exists - only its main bodies were transferred into EU agencies and EU institutions.

If NATO ever dissolved, I would expect the same to happen with its military structure in Europe: parallel branches would merge, EU citizens in NATO posts would carry on doing the same things but under the aegis of the EU, & the EU military administration would suddenly gain an awful lot of offices, staff, & assigned military forces.

Not really. Most European NATO members use this little trick where they assign the same units to both a EU Battlegroup and a NATO body (like joint NRF and EU BG assignment). For example, the D/F Brigade is part of Eurocorps (available to both WEU and NATO) and also forms the German/French EU Battlegroup.
Similar for Eurofor (joint Spanish/Portuguese) - the Spanish units in it are part of the NATO Rapid-Deployable Corps (NRDC), the Portuguese units are part of NATO ARRC iirc.
It's done like that in most East-European NATO-member militaries too afaik.

Meaning - the units are already within EU/WEU defense structures. No need to assign them anywhere within EU structures.

Of course the whole thing could really use a revamping. I'd love to see integration of NATO MNC East (Denmark/Germany/Portugal) with its 6 theoretical (3 actual) divisions into EU structures - outside existing assignment - for example. Eurocorps and Eurofor are pretty much the only corps-sized entities within EU defensive structure so far, and so far it seems that EUMS seems to lean towards regiment/brigade-sized "battlegroups" only without much of a superstructure.

 

[FutureTank]

Nato Medal To Be Awarded To Australian Troops In Afghanistan

DEFENCE MEDIA RELEASE
CPA 412/07 Friday, 2 November 2007

NATO MEDAL TO BE AWARDED TO AUSTRALIAN TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN

The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, today announced that Australian Defence Force personnel serving alongside their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) counterparts in Afghanistan will be able to officially accept and wear the NATO medal.

The Commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) made a formal offer to award the medal to Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel, and this offer has been accepted by the Australian Government. The NATO medal with clasp ‘ISAF’ is awarded for 30 days service in Afghanistan in support of ISAF.

“Australian Defence Force personnel have been working with ISAF since 28 July 2006, and they have been making a significant contribution to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan,” Air Chief Marshal Houston said.

“The award of this NATO medal recognises the military skill and professionalism of Australian service personnel in undertaking difficult and dangerous tasks in Afghanistan. This formal offer reinforces that ADF personnel are held in very high regard by our coalition partners.

“The medal may also be awarded posthumously and both Trooper David Pearce and Sergeant Matthew Locke will be awarded the NATO medal. Arrangements will be made to present this medal to their families at an appropriate time.”

Additionally, any ADF personnel evacuated from the area of operations before reaching the qualifying period due to wounding or serious injury as a result of operations will also be eligible to receive the medal.

ADF members deployed to Afghanistan on Operation Slipper are also eligible for the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp ‘ICAT’ and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal.

Further information about eligibility and the approval process under the Australian honours and awards system for wearing foreign awards will be advised at a later date.

 

[Lancer1978]

I dont see any those countries joining Nato. However what about reforming the South Aisan Treaty Organization(SATO)? It could include perhaps the following nations Austrialia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philipines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom and the United States. This would be a powerful allie of NATO and balence against the Chinese.

 

[StingrayOZ]

SEATO was designed to be a Southeast Asian version of NATO, in which the military forces of each member would be coordinated to provide for the collective defence of the members. SEATO did use portions of the military forces of its members in annual joint training manoeuvres. SEATO was dissolved on June 30, 1977.


ASEAN could end up with a defence branch.

Problem is who do they include.

Asia is a whole other world away from working constructively together. A lot of countries would like to see Japan, China, the USA and Australia out of ASEAN. Others think differently.

Australia, Japan and the US have a very close defence relationship. I would say regionally these are the players. They are all very capable nations who sport to full range of capabilities. Singapore would also be pretty supportive of this pack.

 

[LazerLordz]

SEATO was designed to be a Southeast Asian version of NATO, in which the military forces of each member would be coordinated to provide for the collective defence of the members. SEATO did use portions of the military forces of its members in annual joint training manoeuvres. SEATO was dissolved on June 30, 1977.


ASEAN could end up with a defence branch.

Problem is who do they include.

Asia is a whole other world away from working constructively together. A lot of countries would like to see Japan, China, the USA and Australia out of ASEAN. Others think differently.

Australia, Japan and the US have a very close defence relationship. I would say regionally these are the players. They are all very capable nations who sport to full range of capabilities. Singapore would also be pretty supportive of this pack.

In fact, there's already an existing regional security architecture involving all the nations you've listed. Though what I will be mentioning, is not limited to traditional interpretations of what security means, namely in the military sphere of things.

ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN + 3, East Asian Summit, PSI etc..these involve all or some of the above nations in a multilateral setting one way or another. It does not make sense politically to have a fixed treaty organisation in South East Asia where there is little in common with all the nations at the moment. Moreover, it might disrupt the delicate balance of power game being played in that region right now, non-traditionally speaking of course.

That said, the ASEAN Security Community is the next step forward for ASEAN, and you can be sure that Singapore will be the leading nation in that aspect. In fact, I dare say we're a convenient linkage between East Asia, American interests and the strategic needs of the other ASEAN states who may still want a classical BoP without too much swinging to the other side.

ASEAN is still wary of China, yet we cannot do without the dragon. But our integration is a clear signal of intent that we do not intend to sit idly by. What might be possible in the future (though a long way off), would be a regional strategic dialogue between ASEAN and the other partners in the ASC.

 

[StingrayOZ]

ASEAN is designed to be inclusive. everyone should be in it and work together.

As things progress I think the region will stablise (hopefully) and defence wise things will get simular. Japan, USA and Australia have a unique agreement and work tightly together. All will have warships able to task together, NATO level of compatability. Singapore is not quiet at the same level but has a very strong airforce and is very simular in things like ammunitions etc. The synergy is very high.

Now this group would make up the defence power block. Other lesser nations can join and operate but these nations would be headling any action. Of these nations, Australia and the US are proberly the only ones that put a balls out on the table if the pooh hit the fan, regardless who else was in. Japan is not interested in imperialisim and is politically tied to support roles. Singapore is in a simular position. However both make awesome wingmen to a strong leading nation.

This is why its important for Australia to get its LHD's and its fleet of destroyers. It has to be able to headline a operation in case the US is in a pickle or thinks China or a "friend" might get upset. Sure they would be in the sidelines, they might provide logistics and maybe even a few ships. They would be behind the scenes holding the whole show together.

But I would imagine a Australian, Japan and Singapore taskforce would be pretty dang powerful, 3 or 4 destroyers, a dozen frigates, 3 or 4 submarines, Two oz LHD's?, supply ship, a japanese LHC, landing strong brigade sized forces backed up with ~30+ choppers and fixed wing airsupport from bases in the region. Equal if not superior to most european groups.

US could be kept busy surging say 3 CBG off the coast. Just incase someone gets involved who shouldn't.

 

[Scott]

Regional alliances were practical in the post WWII era but they have become outdated by the evolution of military weaponry and delivery systems. The volume of daily overseas air travel & the size and array of weaponry have made it possible to infiltrate a covert operative most anywhere in the world with a biological or chemical weapon.

The evolution of regional alliances into a coordinated worldwide alliance is a logical conclusion. Australia has been a strong and committed ally to NATO. The other countries listed also add additional strenghts to the alliance.

 

[Rossiman]

I could see Australia,Israel and Singapore joining. Japan maybe, India i can't see joining but it would be great for NATO if they did. To counter regions like Russia,China,Indonesia,Iran.

 

[gunnut2002]

I think that they should be included in nato because they are key U.S. allys and nato is more a less a orgnasion for U.S. allys. So yes in my opion they should be included

 

[indian bull]

If offered NATO membership India will certianly reject it coz NATO is a millitary alliance and Indian policy is based on nonalliance. Australia is certianly no 1 option.

 

[kato]

It's actually somewhat fun to see people here expanding NATO to other continents - when in the actual member nations, NATO is often seen as slowly but surely failing and becoming irrelevant in favour of other alliances.

 

[mysterious]

'indianbull' is apparently still stuck in the 60s. The Non-Aligned status exists only in name.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Which is where Australia is heading. Australia was previously covered by ANZUS pact. However NZ effectively pulled out of this and was instead covered by Australia. Australia however is proberly one of the closest nations to the US in ideology, socially so the relationship is stronger than politics.

The thing about NATO is that it isn't what Australia is all about. Australia really wants control of its own troops and wants to be able to effectively work with UK, US forces seemlessly. It also wants to spearhead operations regionally.

Not waging massive superpower wars, but securing the region and being able to land troops once rubberstamped by the UN. Timor is a classic example. A dozen nations, Irish, UK, Gurkas, Portugese, Spainish, NZ, US etc all quickly combined to make it happen.

Once Australia can land Bridage levels of troops and equipment by itself and sustain them, it will become the centre peice for a defence alliances. NATO is struggling for relevance, other pacts in asia are becomming more important.

 

[funtz]

'indianbull' is apparently still stuck in the 60s. The Non-Aligned status exists only in name.

some literature i read seems to suggest 70s was the death of it, especially from 1970-1976. Still there was 1979 Havana summit where India formally rejected Mr. Castros statement that "socaialism is a natural ally of non alignment". as more of a symbolic move.
Even after that the trend seems to have been a nation to nation relation instead of a formal block of nations cooperating militarily.
Interesting times glad i was not around.

There is still a lot of parliamentary debate (well its more like shouting than debating) about the non alignment status and involvement with the USA or for that matter any military alliance with any other nation, some people from that era are still hanging around.

It is interesting phase in India right now, relations with Iran and Israel still coexist, doesn't seem like they will continue to though.

Realistically though, where is a threat to NATO members that will force NATO to defy the meaning of its name and expand to such depths around the world?

Even in India there seems to be a greater level of military cooperation between India and Singapore recently, Indian and Israeli military relations have many layers, do not have any clue about Indian-Australian and Indian-Japan relations except military exercises. However this seems to be more of a singular nation to nation military relations and will as of now never involve any military allaiance.

However as far as i know there is only one agreement which allows foreign military equipment and troops to be stationed inside India and that is with Singapore.

These nations in Asia can respond to a threat and form some sort of working organization, who knows what will happen in the next 10 years.

 

[indian bull]

well the remnants of nonalignment still exist in India, presently there are no millitary alliances in which India is involved. Even with US words like strategic parternership are used and using words like millitary alliance are strictly prohibited.

 

[KevinB]

No for the simple fact that Australia, Singapore, Japan, and India do not lie anywhere near the North Atlantic. Israel though you can stretch it just like Greece and Turkey, but Israeli membership in NATO should only come as part of a final peace agreement with the Arab states and resolution of the Palestinian issue.

However, the US, UK, Canada, France, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan (as an observer) should organize an alliance to counter Chinese, North Korean, and a resurgent Russia. Also, this alliance can be used to manage the fallout from the potential breakup of Indonesia, political instability in SE Asia and Myanmar (Burma), and potential check to India if they fall under a hostile regime and begin exerting themselves.

 

[indian bull]

No for the simple fact that Australia, Singapore, Japan, and India do not lie anywhere near the North Atlantic. Israel though you can stretch it just like Greece and Turkey, but Israeli membership in NATO should only come as part of a final peace agreement with the Arab states and resolution of the Palestinian issue.

However, the US, UK, Canada, France, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan (as an observer) should organize an alliance to counter Chinese, North Korean, and a resurgent Russia. Also, this alliance can be used to manage the fallout from the potential breakup of Indonesia, political instability in SE Asia and Myanmar (Burma), and potential check to India if they fall under a hostile regime and begin exerting themselves.

Well if nato is expanded for countering India, Russia and China, then these nations will get closer to form a new alliance and nato will be weakened and loose its credibility. Who will permit Taiwan to be included in NATO and when Indonesia is going to break.This is never going to happen.
Well man u can certainly see these things happening in your dreams. I am seeing the death of NATO(EU is going to take much greater role)