Tweet
Concept of NATO Development Isn't Complete
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics26777.html
Published: 14:44:33 - 06/07/2012
Now after the NATO summit in Chicago with which so many hopes were
linked and which certainly had a big role in forming a global system
of security, it is clear that important problems persist which will
not be resolved in the nearest future. Apart from such issues as the
use of new weapons, establishment of a common structure of command,
adoption of the principles of NATO policy, primarily in the regions
and relating to crises, the issue of partnership remains open.
In other words, involvement of new partners beyond NATO membership is
concerned. In fact, the issue of geopolitical positions, creation of
geopolitical reference points, promotion of new positions, first of
all in Eurasia, Central, South and Southeast Asia, other regions are
up.
Judging by different publications and pronouncements of experts `new'
Atlantic sets may emerge. It should be noted that these `new' Atlantic
sets have introduced an important doctrine `of marking the borders of
the free world by 2050'. Presumably, the formal NATO enlargement is
meaningless under obvious transformation of the alliance and emergence
of new power centers around France and Germany and formation of
European armed forces. It would be more productive to involve new
partners, as well as expand functions, missions and zones of
responsibility of the alliance than to enlarge NATO but it will be
tough to solve these practical and institutional issues.
Therefore, it is thought more important to outline the geopolitical
zone in the framework of which normative Western values will be
developed. This zone is marked clearly - all the states of Europe,
including Russia, Ukraine, South Caucasus, as well as Turkey. It is
assumed that they will stop at this point till 2050 since bigger
ambitions will not allow developing fully the `free world'. It is
presumed that this super region of North Atlantics must be taken under
full control by 2015.
Different ideas on NATO enlargement towards North Africa and the Near
East are exotics. Most probably, the issue of enlargement of the NATO
area of responsibility and membership beyond the European region which
would mean violation of UN provisions on globalization.
Russia is given the role of an important partner to fight
international threats, retaining the functions of an energy and raw
material supplier, conserving the R&D potential in the county.
It is taken into account that the order and norms of NATO policy is
not in line with excess enlargement of the alliance. Sufficient
integration of the outlined space will eliminate the need for NATO
enlargement. There is reason to note that this doctrine is understood
in actual political sets of the United States. Experts, apologists and
projectors of NATO development are aware that the `generation' of a
list of partners will cause a number of problems because apart from
political statements on readiness for cooperation few countries are
sincerely committed to supporting the alliance in implementing its
goals.
The majority of such desirable partners take a symbolic part in NATO
actions and they would like to be consumers of security. This concerns
the countries of the South Caucasus who were enthusiastic about
cooperation with NATO, whereas they are not even able to respond to
challenges of the issue of Iran.
Currently the United States and NATO are scrutinizing the usefulness
of states of Central Asia who have been less useful so far than the
Caucasian states. Effective military cooperation with the Arab states
will not even be considered. Apart from this, the problem of Turkey is
coming to the foreground which will be a source and factor of an acute
crisis in transatlantic relations.
Besides, one should keep in mind that the new members of the alliance
in Central and Eastern Europe were less useful to achievement of
practical goals. The question is who will fight once the plans of
establishment of a global system of security are approved? Only the
U.S. army mercenaries? In addition, these characteristics of NATO
members are copied by CSTO.
Hence, the Americans will have to fight (mostly those of Latin
American origin and dreamers of southern states), as well as the
Russians (half of them non-Russians).
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics26777.html
Published: 14:44:33 - 06/07/2012
Now after the NATO summit in Chicago with which so many hopes were
linked and which certainly had a big role in forming a global system
of security, it is clear that important problems persist which will
not be resolved in the nearest future. Apart from such issues as the
use of new weapons, establishment of a common structure of command,
adoption of the principles of NATO policy, primarily in the regions
and relating to crises, the issue of partnership remains open.
In other words, involvement of new partners beyond NATO membership is
concerned. In fact, the issue of geopolitical positions, creation of
geopolitical reference points, promotion of new positions, first of
all in Eurasia, Central, South and Southeast Asia, other regions are
up.
Judging by different publications and pronouncements of experts `new'
Atlantic sets may emerge. It should be noted that these `new' Atlantic
sets have introduced an important doctrine `of marking the borders of
the free world by 2050'. Presumably, the formal NATO enlargement is
meaningless under obvious transformation of the alliance and emergence
of new power centers around France and Germany and formation of
European armed forces. It would be more productive to involve new
partners, as well as expand functions, missions and zones of
responsibility of the alliance than to enlarge NATO but it will be
tough to solve these practical and institutional issues.
Therefore, it is thought more important to outline the geopolitical
zone in the framework of which normative Western values will be
developed. This zone is marked clearly - all the states of Europe,
including Russia, Ukraine, South Caucasus, as well as Turkey. It is
assumed that they will stop at this point till 2050 since bigger
ambitions will not allow developing fully the `free world'. It is
presumed that this super region of North Atlantics must be taken under
full control by 2015.
Different ideas on NATO enlargement towards North Africa and the Near
East are exotics. Most probably, the issue of enlargement of the NATO
area of responsibility and membership beyond the European region which
would mean violation of UN provisions on globalization.
Russia is given the role of an important partner to fight
international threats, retaining the functions of an energy and raw
material supplier, conserving the R&D potential in the county.
It is taken into account that the order and norms of NATO policy is
not in line with excess enlargement of the alliance. Sufficient
integration of the outlined space will eliminate the need for NATO
enlargement. There is reason to note that this doctrine is understood
in actual political sets of the United States. Experts, apologists and
projectors of NATO development are aware that the `generation' of a
list of partners will cause a number of problems because apart from
political statements on readiness for cooperation few countries are
sincerely committed to supporting the alliance in implementing its
goals.
The majority of such desirable partners take a symbolic part in NATO
actions and they would like to be consumers of security. This concerns
the countries of the South Caucasus who were enthusiastic about
cooperation with NATO, whereas they are not even able to respond to
challenges of the issue of Iran.
Currently the United States and NATO are scrutinizing the usefulness
of states of Central Asia who have been less useful so far than the
Caucasian states. Effective military cooperation with the Arab states
will not even be considered. Apart from this, the problem of Turkey is
coming to the foreground which will be a source and factor of an acute
crisis in transatlantic relations.
Besides, one should keep in mind that the new members of the alliance
in Central and Eastern Europe were less useful to achievement of
practical goals. The question is who will fight once the plans of
establishment of a global system of security are approved? Only the
U.S. army mercenaries? In addition, these characteristics of NATO
members are copied by CSTO.
Hence, the Americans will have to fight (mostly those of Latin
American origin and dreamers of southern states), as well as the
Russians (half of them non-Russians).