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

[swerve]

Playing that on, Denmark (Greenland) too...

*cough* Albania *cough*

I presumed that it didn't count, because it ceased to be a member long before the end of the Cold War. Left formally in 1968, but withdrew co-operation in 1961. Relied on Chinese weapons after that.

Greenland isn't part of Europe except politically, & by that criterion Guadeloupe & Martinique are in Europe, & more so, being parts of the EU, which (despite being part of the Kingdom of Denmark & NATO), Greenland isn't - though its citizens are full EU citizens. One of the plethora of special cases, & so far the only territory to secede. It left on 01-01-1985.

I do love the exceptions & special cases among EU & associated territories. Livigno, for example - a single mountain valley, which I've skied all over in a day (including a decent lunch & stops for coffee & mulled wine), exempt from excise duties, customs dues & VAT, due to rights confirmed by (among others) the EU, the Republic of Italy, the Kingdom of Italy, the Austrian Empire, Napoleon, & the Holy Roman Empire. Wonderful!

 

[Incognito129]

As far as NATO and the Atlantic Ocean is concerned, much alike Estonia neither do Turkey. Greece, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany. NATO would be left with only the United Kingdom, Norway, France, Portugal, and Spain from Europe.

What the hell does this mean???

 

[Waylander]

That it is senseless to base a potential role within NATO on having an atlantic coast. (Which Estonia doesn't have anyway)

There are much more factors and pure capabilities or strategic locations are often enough minor points.

 

[swerve]

What the hell does this mean???

It means they are the NATO Europe countries with an Atlantic coastline. I believe you gave the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that you thought them of more significance than those without such a coastline.

 

[mohd2590]

from military alliance, pakistan is more closer than india....india is more like pro soviet

 

[Sea Toby]

From an American point of view, we have since the end of WWII been advocating a far eastern alliance, much like Europe, with Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, to even include India and Pakistan, among others. Unfortunately, the other nations were not as forgiving of Japan as the United States. The United States forgave Japan as much as Germany.

Plowing ahead into a new millenium, I still think such an alliance would be and should be welcomed by all. And I would like to see Russia included into both alliances, Nato and the far east. For example, New Zealand would not have so easily ditched the Anzus alliance if Russia and China were included.

Wouldn't Australia feel safer with an alliance with its neighbors over an alliance with Europeans half way around the world? As it is, Australia really doesn't have an alliance with Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, much less Indonesia.

Had such an alliance of the free nations of the Far East was in existance during Vietnam, I really do believe Vietnam's outcome would have been different, and the Korean conflict would have never happened. While the UN is welcomed, a true regional alliance similar to Nato with or without US participation should be welcomed, not only in Europe, but far east Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

 

[Grand Danois]

Here is an interesting and provocative thought and map:

The map divides the world into two parts: “the functioning core” and the “non-integrated gap.”

 

[swerve]

Here is an interesting and provocative thought and map:

The map divides the world into two parts: “the functioning core” and the “non-integrated gap.”

Been around a while. Some rather bizarre choices, for example putting India on the opposite side of the line from Turkey.

It's arguable that India should be split, with e.g. Bihar being the other side of the line.

 

[flanx]

I dont see any reason why it needs to expand to Asia?

Singapore and Australia? there is no military threat around the area for them join...

 

[LazerLordz]

Here is an interesting and provocative thought and map:

The map divides the world into two parts: “the functioning core” and the “non-integrated gap.”

Singapore's omitted from that. I call it flawed.

 

[Chino]

Singapore has a mainly conscript defence force.

While I would fight and die for my country without a moment's hesitation - if it was threatened - I don't give a rat's ass about Iraq, Afghanistan or some African genocidal regime.

They can all rot for all I care.

So, no. I hope Singapore NEVER EVER join NATO.

 

[Stryker001]

No point the US will reform its strategic objectives in relation to the NATO alliance in the future, with another alliance it would be better to wait and join that group, instead of NATO. Some EU nations will be both members of NATO and the new alliance.

That's why Gates is tell the EU/NATO to arm up so they are not as reliant on the US to form the backbone of NATO. It has been the lack of support in Afghanistan that has made the US question the value of the NATO alliance.

 

[LazerLordz]

Singapore has a mainly conscript defence force.

While I would fight and die for my country without a moment's hesitation - if it was threatened - I don't give a rat's ass about Iraq, Afghanistan or some African genocidal regime.

They can all rot for all I care.

So, no. I hope Singapore NEVER EVER join NATO.

Referring to our nation seen as out of the "integrated core" of developed nations lah.

Oh, whoever said we will send conscripts to deploy abroad to meet strategic national interests?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[nevidimka]

I think NATO is encraoching into UN's territory if it does expands into these countries. Plus NATO should change its name. Australia is in the Pacific.

 

[LazerLordz]

None of the five countries mentioned actually need to be in Nato for Nato to intervene. All they need to do is to have a defence alliance with a member of Nato.

Once that Nato member joins in the fight, Nato may be called in.

Australia has a treaty with the US. Singapore has the FPDA together with Australia and the UK. Japan has a treaty with the US. Perhaps only India but then I don't think they need Nato's assistance in their sphere of influence.

The irony is that Nato was designed as an institution protecting western Europe. It would be a huge jump in its scope if ever it were to be called upon outside of Europe.

The concept of formal alliances are however misleading. It didn't need formal alliances for states to contribute troops/military in Afghanistan/Iraq. It won't need an alliance for multi-national operations in wars. All it needs are inter-operability training/exercises (sounds familiar?).

Good post. NATO should never have extended beyond its scope in the first place, and what is happening now, can somewhat be construed as institutional muddling and creeping over-extension.

I'd like to point out that the FPDA is not really perceived as a substantial defence treaty for Singapore. In any case, in the context of your point about NATO being called in if one NATO member is involved with a partner nation, it will not apply to the FPDA, because Singapore isn't party to a mutual defence treaty for defence of UK or Australia's national interest.

If NATO wants to expand into Asia, I'd say that we don't need it. We already have our own regional secuity architecture, with all that enmeshed bilateral and multilateral arrangements.

NATO's style of security architecture will not realistically work in this region, too much diverse concerns.

 

[swerve]

The concept of formal alliances are however misleading. It didn't need formal alliances for states to contribute troops/military in Afghanistan/Iraq.

The original invasion of Afghanistan qualified as a NATO operation, in accordance with article 5. The USA had been attacked. Other NATO states offered assistance, without waiting for the USA to invoke article 5. It was up to the USA, as the state attacked, whether to invoke the NATO treaty, & the USA preferred not to, & to invade Afghanistan as a US operation, with ad-hoc allies, but unlike Iraq, it got support from NATO members from the start (e.g. France, which sent troops & aircraft in 2001, & Germany) because it was considered to qualify as a NATO matter.

The geographical limitations of NATO apply to the area where any attack is carried out, not where it originates. New York & the Pentagon are undoubtedly within the NATO area.

 

[kato]

The original invasion of Iraq qualified as a NATO operation, in accordance with article 5.

... Afghanistan. Not Iraq. Before anyone misquotes you there.

Also, in the case of Afghanistan, a NATO Chapter 5 case was indeed officially invoked by the North Atlantic Council on September 12th 2001 (with the limitation that at that time the source of the attack was yet to be determined). A Chapter-5 does not have to be asked for by the attacked nation and doing so would actually invert the treaty in that regard.

 

[swerve]

... Afghanistan. Not Iraq. Before anyone misquotes you there.

Oops! Thanks for that. Major disconnect between fingers & brain there. Now corrected.

And wrong on some details, too. But right in principle. Iraq & Afghanistan should not be considered together. Iraq is a purely "USA plus ad-hoc allies" operation, while Afghanistan is covered by the NATO treaty, & NATO-supported.

 

[Chino]

Referring to our nation seen as out of the "integrated core" of developed nations lah.

Oh, whoever said we will send conscripts to deploy abroad to meet strategic national interests?

Whose "national strategic interests"? Ours or NATO's, or US's?

Lah... : )