You might want to read up on enmeshment and how strategic interests have an interesting habit of overlapping to produce relative gains.
As for "Lah".. please clarify.
Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?
- Thread starter levathan
- Start date
As for "Lah".. please clarify.
Why don't you just answer my question, instead of using your housewife style of wasting a lot of words but saying nothing?
As for "lah", you used it first so why don't you do the explaining?
Actually to be honest, I loath talking to you so why not just STFU?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Afghanistan: UN-mandated, but ´with NATO in the executive - which is opposed to ex-Yugoslavia. I doubt you'll ever see a UN-led Balkans type of operation again with NATO troops.
The presence of the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq has actually gotten a real UN mandate.
It looks like this:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm
LazerLordz,
Although FPDA doesn't mandate a response and is only for the Malay peninsula (and Singapore), however given that the Commander of IADS has been an Australian for several decades and the straits are vital to Australia's export economy, I'd be surprised if Australia didn't turn up. Would Malaysia and Singapore not use IADS ? As soon as they do, Australia (well at least 1 serving officer) is involved.
Although FPDA doesn't mandate a response and is only for the Malay peninsula (and Singapore), however given that the Commander of IADS has been an Australian for several decades and the straits are vital to Australia's export economy, I'd be surprised if Australia didn't turn up. Would Malaysia and Singapore not use IADS ? As soon as they do, Australia (well at least 1 serving officer) is involved.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hehe, think they got one a bit earlier than that.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Agree. I'm just pedantic about details sometimes.
Realistically, I'm sure they would. Apologies if I confused you earlier.
There's just some misunderstanding that the FPDA is a mutual defence treaty covering all five parties, when it is a consultative group that can be activated, so to speak, when either Singapore or Malaysia is under attack. This is where it differs from NATO.
It's theoretically more one-way towards SG-MY's defence rather than UK, NZ or Aust, although we can definitely argue that Aust's interests do coincide with ours and MY, where stability of this region is concerned.
Singapore has been reguarly deploying to Iraq(transports, tanker aircrafts, naval ships) and now Afghanistan(engineers and medical staff). I see it as a gradual process of eventually deploying combat personel on the ground once the Singapore population is "ok" with it. Afterall, these are regular SAF personnel.
It is impossible for the SAF to deploy in the tens of thousands in a foreign theatre which only the major powers could possibly do. But it is certainly possible for the SAF to make smaller contributions like what the rest of the NATO/allied countries are doing; Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, etc. The only issue has been political; whether Singaporeans in general can accept such a deployment when Singapore itself is not threatened. This could be a nice election issue which the governing party would find hard to win supporters. Hence, the gradual approach.
I doubt Asian countries want a formal alliance of any sort. They have cultivated(thanks to a few key countries in Asean) a consensus/consultative form of dealing with problems. Not exactly the best way of dealing with everything. But it circumvents the need to have blocks of disparate countries with guns pointed at one another.
However, unofficial and soft partnerships are evident throughout the region as the latter gives greater confidence to the countries involved and sends soft but firm signals of intent should things go awry.
A lot depends on how China inducts herself into the world order. They are very focused on domestic development now. But they have made some military moves as well. There is a huge Chinese intelligence, naval and air base near the eastern end of the South China Sea now; Paracel Islands. They can put a sizeable fleet and jet force there and they will be able to reach out to 2/3 of Asean and threaten Taiwan simultaneously. Or a bunch of cheap ballistic missle launchers.
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/09/26/chinas_espionage_facilities_at_sea/3893/
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8...41557&spn=0.028753,0.036478&z=14&source=embed
However, unofficial and soft partnerships are evident throughout the region as the latter gives greater confidence to the countries involved and sends soft but firm signals of intent should things go awry.
A lot depends on how China inducts herself into the world order. They are very focused on domestic development now. But they have made some military moves as well. There is a huge Chinese intelligence, naval and air base near the eastern end of the South China Sea now; Paracel Islands. They can put a sizeable fleet and jet force there and they will be able to reach out to 2/3 of Asean and threaten Taiwan simultaneously. Or a bunch of cheap ballistic missle launchers.
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/09/26/chinas_espionage_facilities_at_sea/3893/
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8...41557&spn=0.028753,0.036478&z=14&source=embed
ReAl PrOeLiTeZ
New Member
you do know that nato stands for north atlantic treaty organisation. if you include australia then it wouldnt be called north atlantic anymore.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
No there is enough instability in the organisation as it is over Georgia, Ukraine and Afghnaistan. Loading the organisation with yet more instability would be more than it can take.NATO was designed as an alliance to fight conventional wars against the USSR (Russia) & its allies. It's tried to re-invent itself of late, but with only partial success.
This would mean, as has been pointed out, that NATO would have to cease being NATO & become something else, & that would require the assent of every single current member (though Iceland might vote to let Japan in, because of whaling policy
Another problem is one that Mr. Giuliani apparently hasn't considered. Would they want to join? Who can envisage India committing troops to protect Turkey from Russia, for example? Other countries would have their own difficulties, e.g. Japan would have to amend its arms export laws & its constitution. It's had to be stretched just to allow Japan to defend itself. Would Australia be willing to promise to defend French Pacific islands & Mayotte?
BTW, it would imply the USA throwing away the Monroe Doctrine, since a world-wide extension of NATO would stretch it to the British, French & Dutch territories in the Americas, which were for the most part deliberately excluded from the scope of NATO.
Beside's there is no real appitite outside of Washington for such new adventures, especially with Merkel squashing the idea of Eastward expansion re Georgia and the Ukraine during her recent visit to Moscow.
Recent failure of NATO in Afghanistan need restructuring of this organisation,if needed to combat extremism .
I think to stop extremism either in muslims,hindus,cristians or jew NATO is not suitable organisation.
I think UNO is better organisation to control terrorism and extremism .
Last edited by a moderator:
Recent failure of NATO in Afghanistan need restructuring of this organisation,if needed to combat extremism .
I think to stop extremism either in muslims,hindus,cristians or jew NATO is not suitable organisation.
I think UNO is better organisation to control terrorism and extremism .
Good grief if you think NATO is dysfunctional in the context of Afghanistan - the UNO is even worse. What they face in Afghanistan is nothing less than a full scale COIN operations against numerous groups (and broadly labeled the Taliban). NATO knows that there are different groups and are starting to develop a strategy. That is why, the US and NATO are rethinking their approach. The ongoing robust discussion amongst coalition partners is necessary to succeed.The UNO does not have a unified command structure - its just standing contributions by individual nations. Typical UNO force deployments do not have sufficient combat power/capability to deal with the intense and ongoing COIN operations. The equipment, the level of training and even standards vary a great deal - depending on who are the contributing nations to the UNO.
If you get this type of response from a person coming from a country that fully supports the UN's missions - I can imagine what an American response would be. Please don't try to irritate the forum members from NATO countries.
Ultimately, the long term solution needs to come from Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, today Afghanistan is a failed state and Pakistan nuclear armed a state without effective control of its borders.
So how can UN resolutions help build capability to battle the current insurgency?:lul
Please think about what you are saying. If you are going to post, at least explain why and how the alternate solution (in your case, the UNO) would work.
Any way - this thread is for the discussion on whether other countries should join NATO. NATO by its name and treaty structure - should tell you that Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore are not eligible to join.
AFAIK, the 3 most capable military powers of the 5 countries listed at the start are Australia, India and Israel.
Japan's SDF is limited in the role it can perform because of its constitution.
Singapore is tiny - it has a population of 4 m, our defence budget (while big in ASEAN terms) is dwarfed by comparison to Australia, India or Israel. The bulk of our full time army is comprises of conscripts - they serve 2 years and then go back to civilian life. Only our navy and air force comprise of full time volunteers (at least the bulk of it). It takes close to a year for us to turn a battalion operational and ready for deployment - starting from basic military training. Even if we tried, how long can a deployment from Singapore last?
Any way our largest deployment to date was in Banda Aceh after the Dec 2004 Tsunami (click on this link for a free ebook on SAF's "Operation Flying Eagle" deployment).
Did you know that for a number of Singapore deployments - we actually had to deploy with NSmen volunteers? In other words, we need these NSmen (who are former conscripts back in civilian life taking a break from their day jobs) to go back to serve in the military just for a deployment.
So, IMHO, there is no need even to consider Singapore and Japan.
Last edited:
Australia already has privileged access into NATO.
Our systems are interoperable, we have an elevated access into sensitive security material, and we are now privy to planning issues.
Our security/clearance systems take into account NATO procedures and are being modified to "best fit".
There is no need to join unless symbolism is the driver.
Our systems are interoperable, we have an elevated access into sensitive security material, and we are now privy to planning issues.
Our security/clearance systems take into account NATO procedures and are being modified to "best fit".
There is no need to join unless symbolism is the driver.
Agreed that UNO need restructuring and independent policies but ,if UNO with the support of China,Pakistan and Few central Asian states they will be more effectice then NATO in Afghanistan.
Same response as above
I know that member forum members from NATO countries already very much irritated with too long Afghanistan mission but NATO cammanders are specking realistically that there is need to revise the strategy.
Agreed.
UNO proved sucessful espacially countries effected by muslim exterism ,sudan,somalia,bosnia and where long term strategy is more effective to restore peace and rehabilation and development required
Why not
Not Agreed for India and Israel because they both are part of problem in their areas.
Singapore have very less population but Japan can provide more financial support .
Last edited by a moderator:
Message to All
Please use the proper edit and quotation capabilities within the forum software
Where is there evidence that it's failing - outside of the general media announcements what evidence is there of the military and reconstruction efforts being unsuccessful? This is a 20+ year event.
How, the UNO has been spectacularly unsuccessful in stopping extremism because it's geared for nation state resolution - and even then its been incompetent
stellar examples of UNO's efforts in non state events are coherent responses in Rwanda, Congo and Bosnia. (it was the US that ended up doing the heavy lifting in the end
Not one successful outcome since creation - hardly a decent track record. The Security Council structure means that nothing gets passed unless recalcitrant members forget to attend or make a bad political move (Korean War being a good example)I think UNO is better organisation to control terrorism and extremism .