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

[swerve]

The Falklands are not included in NATO, like the Faroe or Ceuta and Melilla they are not under the cover of NATO.

That's the main point of my post.

I'll spell it out.

NATO covers a designated area.

If it expanded to include countries outside Europe & North America, that area would have to change.

This could mean that the Falklands and other areas which are now outside the NATO area would come within the NATO area.

The implications of that would have to be thought out.

BTW, the Faeroes most definitely are covered by NATO.

 

[kato]

It doesn't cover even the core territory of all member nations now already. Hawaii for example is a rather prominent example not covered.

 

[Jissy]

Abraham said: "All that being said evolving NATO into a Global Treaty Organisation (GTO) that offered truly free, fully democratic advanced economies around the world a mutual security pact could be a powerful tool in promoting freedom and peace..."

I agree with Abraham, and if one goes back to what the ex Mayor of New York said, he suggests increasing the NATO membership beyond those named, and thereby creating a global military pact between these countries. Of course, it would make perfect sense to rename it, as the NATO name would be confusing.

Anyway, the proposition appears to have been a gambit put forward by a political opportunist, Giuliani, (who was running for President at the time) and after the flak the USA copped from the UN, after attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, it is little surprise that he would promote a new organization to rival the UN, one based on military power that is prepared to use it!

The collective power/persuasion would be impressive, if enough of the right nations joined up, and as NATO has proven, it would be prepared to not just bare its teeth, but use them when necessary, unlike the UN, which is like a eunich in a harem...no balls! :lol2

 

[Jhom]

That's the main point of my post.

I'll spell it out.

NATO covers a designated area.

If it expanded to include countries outside Europe & North America, that area would have to change.

This could mean that the Falklands and other areas which are now outside the NATO area would come within the NATO area.

The implications of that would have to be thought out.

BTW, the Faeroes most definitely are covered by NATO.

Ok now i get your point, if NATO expands outside the Atlantic then the Falklands could be included.

And you are right about the Faroes, my fault there...

 

[swerve]

It doesn't cover even the core territory of all member nations now already. Hawaii for example is a rather prominent example not covered.

Yes, but the current limits would be insupportable if membership expanded to East Asia or Australasia. For example, how could we justify excluding Nouvelle Caledonie if New Zealand & Australia (including Norfolk island) were included?

They would have to be re-thought. This would cause many arguments. It would be very difficult, politically.

 

[T.C.P]

Evolving the NATO into GTO would be interesting but, just some thoughts-

Firstly, India, I can't really picture India in the NATO/GTO, India is a power by its own right and is a potential superpower, it has historically refrained form joining any formal military alliance, and I don' really think that India will see it worth it to join GTO. Being a great power India's ideas and wants will conflict with other powers, the US included, plus there's the strong Russian influence, Russia still is one of India's most closest allies, and they won't exactly welcome the idea of India joining a US lead alliance.

The Russia, China factor has to be considered, they aren't just sitting ducks, they do have considerable influence in the world, and they will be opposing the GTO. The GTO might even force these two powers to respond with their own military alliance. Pakistan would probably seal a very strong defence pact with China and Russia might even join this to counter balance the US encirclement. It could force the world back into the cold war era.

So far my understanding of the GTO is that it is an enlarged NATO containing democratic countries from around the world who have good relations with the US. However, we have to remember that not all regions are as harmonious as Europe, there are conflicts between bordering democratic countries, all of whom have good relations with the US, now how do you propose to involve these not so friendly towards each other countries into a NATO type alliance?

Over all, although I find the idea of a GTO very interesting, I just don't think it would ield any good results.

 

[the road runner]

Just a quick question.....Do NATO country s loose there sovereignty over there Armed forces once they join NATO?

If the Above is a "YES" i would not want Australia to join NATO at the loss of command of our troops.

I would rather see an ANZUS type treaty with Asian country,s looking out for the interest of ASIA, but in saying that i was just reading of how SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation) was a major failure in the1950-70s.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

It would ideologically nice for these countries to join but it wouldn't really make sense for pacific countries to join up. Russia isn't going to be attack Australia anytime soon, and the US already has a very strong relationship with Japan. The only countries in the region who Australia would need help in fighting are China, Japan, and India. It wouldn't be in the Europeans' interests to declare war on China; Japan isn't going to declare war on Australia unless it completely breaks off all ties with the US, and India has China to think about and wouldn't want to start a useless war with a long time ally of the US.
That said, a pacific NATO-like organization wouldn't be a bad call but the US would have to play a much more limited role in that than it does in NATO unless its economy starts growing at 4 percent again.

 

[lopez]

I wasnt aware there was plans to relocate Australia to the north Atlantic:rolling :rolling

but on a serous note i don't think it will happen as their is know political will at this time...

and wouldn't it just tie (geographically and strategically) disconnected countries to conflicts they other wise wouldn't want to be involved with?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia joining NATO may seem to make sense, Australia has strong connections to nearly all NATO countries, Australia is a strong power, Australia needs allies.

However NATO is quiet a dynamic little group. They are not as a whole going to commit to defending Australia, some partners for sure, some no. What about defending the region around Australia? No, even less, and those that do at a lower level.

Even the US cannot commit to securing to Australias satisfaction the region around her. Sure the US will counter serious external powers (say china or Russia interfering), but internal struggles, turmoil etc are out of its control, the US really doesn't want to get involved in a civil war in asia and her allies wouldn't want that either.

So best thing Australia can do is become a regional centrepeice. An agent who can lead a force of select nations most offering only lower levels of support (coms, intel, supply, a few offering a little more). This deployable, mobile force isnt' enough to overrun an organised and cohesive defence forces but is enough to secure a beachhead in a state of chaos or in a broken, seperating state. Some where forces and land, peace keepers, aid etc.

That and pursue defence alignments with countries on the same page. Australia has strong ties, with UK, US, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, NZ. Furthering those partnerships would be much more useful than joining NATO.

 

[swerve]

Just a quick question.....Do NATO country s loose there sovereignty over there Armed forces once they join NATO?

Of course not. Look at the many non-NATO operations the armed forces of NATO countries have been involved in.

 

[ngatimozart]

It would ideologically nice for these countries to join but it wouldn't really make sense for pacific countries to join up. Russia isn't going to be attack Australia anytime soon, and the US already has a very strong relationship with Japan. The only countries in the region who Australia would need help in fighting are China, Japan, and India. It wouldn't be in the Europeans' interests to declare war on China; Japan isn't going to declare war on Australia unless it completely breaks off all ties with the US, and India has China to think about and wouldn't want to start a useless war with a long time ally of the US.
That said, a pacific NATO-like organization wouldn't be a bad call but the US would have to play a much more limited role in that than it does in NATO unless its economy starts growing at 4 percent again.

Australia, NZ and other Pacific countries would be better off not having any formal relationships with NATO. NATO is a Eurocentric organisation and for us to be involved makes no sense, because there are no geographical, few political, and I would argue little cultural, commonalities that would see Europe coming to our aid if needed. There are divisions within NATO and the EU as well and they can't agree on a common defence air transport policy at the moment. Greece and Turkey are part of NATO and there are frosty relations between them.

I thing it was Stingray who said that Australia & NZ work with NATO on various things at different levels and we both work with the US, Canada, France & the Poms regularly outside of NATO. SEATO I think died a natural death. The FPDA works and ANZUS is basically defunct now. I do not think a GTO is the way to go, because I see it as basically lining up the US and pro US countries Vs the rest. Personally I would like to see and extension of the FPDA to include ASEAN, South Korea, India, and Japan, with the US, China and Russia having observer status.

Just some thoughts

 

[lopez]

I thing it was Stingray who said that Australia & NZ work with NATO on various things at different levels and we both work with the US, Canada, France & the Poms regularly outside of NATO. SEATO I think died a natural death. The FPDA works and ANZUS is basically defunct now. I do not think a GTO is the way to go, because I see it as basically lining up the US and pro US countries Vs the rest. Personally I would like to see and extension of the FPDA to include ASEAN, South Korea, India, and Japan, with the US, China and Russia having observer status.

Just some thoughts

ANZUS is dead from a kiwi perspective but well and truly alive between Aus and the USA. Obama is coming all the way down here for a three day visit to celebrate its 60th or something anniversary. Some even hold it as the ultimate guarantor of Australia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

ANZUS is dead from a kiwi perspective but well and truly alive between Aus and the USA.

You might want to run that by all the Kiwis who are attached to HQJOC and who are visibly engaged in everything we do with the US (across a high percentage of engagement activities involving us all)

ANZUS may not be alive for some in the public domain but its certainly not the actual working reality.

ANZUS does not cover off or impact on 5I's engagement.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

ANZUS is dead from a kiwi perspective but well and truly alive between Aus and the USA. Obama is coming all the way down here for a three day visit to celebrate its 60th or something anniversary. Some even hold it as the ultimate guarantor of Australia.

<Insert image of star trek guy planting his head in his palm.>

Everything is wrong in this statement. Ignorant, offensive and just plain stupid.

ANZUS suffered a hit when NZ banned nuclear equipped ships from its ports. But that was 30 years ago. Things have happened since then. For example 911 (heard of that?) and the end of US nuclear ambiguity. But most important was the Wellington Declaration, which formalised the end of the thaw between NZ and the USA.

As to ANZUS being the ultimate guarantor of Australia that is an absolutely horrendous load of crap. Australia is a sovereign nation widely recognized around the world with no threats or challenges to its existence. ANZUS does NOT provide a security guarantee for any treaty member. Just that they would consult each other if their security is threatened. The guarantor of ‘Australia’ is the sole nation that exists on the continent. It has more than enough wealth and industrial capacity to defend its unique geostrategic environment from ANY threat.

 

[ngatimozart]

<Insert image of star trek guy planting his head in his palm.>

Everything is wrong in this statement. Ignorant, offensive and just plain stupid.

ANZUS suffered a hit when NZ banned nuclear equipped ships from its ports. But that was 30 years ago. Things have happened since then. For example 911 (heard of that?) and the end of US nuclear ambiguity. But most important was the Wellington Declaration, which formalised the end of the thaw between NZ and the USA.

As to ANZUS being the ultimate guarantor of Australia that is an absolutely horrendous load of crap. Australia is a sovereign nation widely recognized around the world with no threats or challenges to its existence. ANZUS does NOT provide a security guarantee for any treaty member. Just that they would consult each other if their security is threatened. The guarantor of ‘Australia’ is the sole nation that exists on the continent. It has more than enough wealth and industrial capacity to defend its unique geostrategic environment from ANY threat.

My apologies I started the ANZUS is defunct run. Yes I had forgot the Wellington Declaration. With regard to Australian security, the second tenant of NZ defence policy is that any attack upon Australia is to be regarded as an attack on NZ and NZ will support Australia in all possible ways. It's in the 2010 NZ Defence White Paper.

1.5 In a sometimes violent world there will be occasions when the use of military force is appropriate. It is likely that New Zealand would consider the possible use of military force in the following circumstances:
• in response to a direct threat to New Zealand and its territories;
• in response to a direct threat to Australia;
• as part of collective action in support of a member of the Pacific Islands Forum facing a direct threat
• as part of New Zealand's contribution to the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA); or
• if requested or mandated by the United Nations (UN), especially in support of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.

1.6 It is also likely that ad hoc coalitions prepared to use force in response to security concerns will arise in the future, and that New Zealand might be asked to contribute. The Government would consider a range of factors in determining the possible scale and nature of any such contribution.

(NZ 2010 DWP p10)

Later Edit: I've moved a section that is not pertinent to this discussion. My apologies. Trying to multi task, write paper and follow Rugby World Cup.

 

[lopez]

<Insert image of star trek guy planting his head in his palm.>

Everything is wrong in this statement. Ignorant, offensive and just plain stupid.

ANZUS suffered a hit when NZ banned nuclear equipped ships from its ports. But that was 30 years ago. Things have happened since then. For example 911 (heard of that?) and the end of US nuclear ambiguity. But most important was the Wellington Declaration, which formalised the end of the thaw between NZ and the USA.

As to ANZUS being the ultimate guarantor of Australia that is an absolutely horrendous load of crap. Australia is a sovereign nation widely recognized around the world with no threats or challenges to its existence. ANZUS does NOT provide a security guarantee for any treaty member. Just that they would consult each other if their security is threatened. The guarantor of ‘Australia’ is the sole nation that exists on the continent. It has more than enough wealth and industrial capacity to defend its unique geostrategic environment from ANY threat.

yes i have heard of 9/11 ...

I said "some" hold ANZUS as the ultimate guarantor of our security. I personally do not believe that at all. All I was trying to say was that ANZUS is still alive and is useful... I wasn't aware of Washington declaration and was still under the impression that NZ/US relations were still a little bit strained but were on the mend...



Abe I think your style of response could be a little more friendly, but you do know your stuff so thanks for the education...

apologies to all for not thinking...

 

[Armoredpriapism]

The thought of India or China invading the continent isn't even in my mind but the idea of either of those countries muscling their way into its periphery seems possible unless it's got some serious beef. It needs to be able to hit back so hard that even the strongest regional player is disinterested in threatening any aspect of Australia's sovereignty. Having hoe-hum consultative agreements isn't enough. Unless it's bound to, would the US be willing to risk carrier groups to defend its buddy's oil exploration? Would it risk serious naval resources to patrol against an aggressor who tries to keep the Aussy navy in their littorals? I dunno, it seems like going it alone is risky.

 

[t68]

The thought of India or China invading the continent isn't even in my mind but the idea of either of those countries muscling their way into its periphery seems possible unless it's got some serious beef. It needs to be able to hit back so hard that even the strongest regional player is disinterested in threatening any aspect of Australia's sovereignty. Having hoe-hum consultative agreements isn't enough. Unless it's bound to, would the US be willing to risk carrier groups to defend its buddy's oil exploration? Would it risk serious naval resources to patrol against an aggressor who tries to keep the Aussy navy in their littorals? I dunno, it seems like going it alone is risky.

I have no doubt that the US and some European countries would come to our aid if needed not all, for the US Australia is not only a trusted friend in the Pacific but we do represent a strategic importance to the US in other ways.(pine gap)

The Battle of Coral Sea was fought not far from Australia, the USN lost a carrier not only taking the fight to the IJN but also it was a strategic battle to protect the SLOC to and from the US/Aust. Yes it was another time and attitudes were in a different world back then but Australia has the same importance to the US back 1942 as it does in the 21 century.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have no doubt that the US and some European countries would come to our aid if needed not all, for the US Australia is not only a trusted friend in the Pacific but we do represent a strategic importance to the US in other ways.(pine gap)

The Battle of Coral Sea was fought not far from Australia, the USN lost a carrier not only taking the fight to the IJN but also it was a strategic battle to protect the SLOC to and from the US/Aust. Yes it was another time and attitudes were in a different world back then but Australia has the same importance to the US back 1942 as it does in the 21 century.

You forgot the Solomons, Iron Bottom Sound and a few others close by. My old man was with the RNZAF in the Solomons, his brother with the 3rd NZ Division in the Solomons as well fighting alongside and being supplied by the Americans. You don't forget things like that. I take my hat off to them USMC guys that went ashore & fought in the Solomons jungle. I saw what it had done to my uncle and a lot of the other 3rd Div guys.