Introduction Regional peace, just like global peace, has remained important in international relations. This is the rationale behind the creation of regional organisations aimed at ensuring peace and stability at the regional level. Such an organisation would constitute a collective defence system in which the members come to an agreement to ensure shared defence in reaction to attacks by external enemies. One such organisation is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, created on April 4, 1949 in Washington by the North Atlantic Treaty (Wolff, 2009). This paper discusses NATO as a security organization, explaining its framework, members, objective, policy, operation policy strategy for 2010 concept and secretary general. The paper will include an analysis of ISAF. Main Case The 1948 Brussels Treaty, which was later revised in 1984, set the pace for the rebuilding of Western European security after the war. This led to the formation of the Western Union and the Brussels Treaty Organisation. This also set the initial steps in the signing of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty and subsequently the establishment of the North Atlantic Alliance. In April 1949, the Treaty of Washington was signed, leading to the mutual security system founded upon a partnership among 12 nations: Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Norway, the UK and the US. Greece and Turkey later joined in 1952, in 1955, The Federal Republic of Germany, and Spain in 1982. In 1999, The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary also became members of NATO (Wolff, 2009). In 2004, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Romania became member states. In April 2009, Croatia and Albania joined. The North Atlantic Alliance came into being after a Treaty that was entered voluntarily and signed by the members following extensive public debate as well as due process in parliament. Individual rights and the global obligations of the members are observed according to the United Nations Charter. The declaratory objectives of NATO focus primarily on defence and deterrence, with its structure being in tune to offense as well as protracted warfare. The framework of NATO includes a split civil and military structures as well as a number of agencies and organisations, all with specialised roles. The civil structure has its main bodies including the NATO Headquarters, The Secretary General, and the International Staff (IS), and The Permanent Representatives and National Delegations. The military structure has its bodies including the Military Committee, Strategic NATO Commanders, the Chairman of the Military Committee, Allied Command Europe (ACE), International Military Staff, and Allied Command Atlantic (ACLANT). Informally related to NATO, some regional bodies comprise the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (Nikitina, 2012). The general strategic objectives for NATO are set by a body called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This assembly has regular meetings, the Annual Session, with another meeting for one every year. The role played by the assembly is direct integration with the parliamentary systems of the member states with appointment of Permanent Members, or simply diplomatic representatives to the organisation (Wolff, 2009). Legislators from the North Atlantic Alliance member states make up the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, together with thirteen associate members. In 2010, Karl A. Lamers became the assemblys president. The Assembly is basically the body of the organization that enables political integration and one that establishes its policies. Jens Stoltenberg is the current secretary general of NATO, the position being defined as the international diplomatic one. The secretary general plays the role of the NATO chief official and the holder of the position being responsible for coordination of the operations of the organisation as the leader of the North Atlantic Council, and leading the staff of NATO (Nikitina, 2012). NATO is responsible for many military policies that are aimed at promoting regional and international peace. A good case example of this is the NATOs 2010 Strategic Concept, which is meant to restate the claim that in- and out-of-area operations are the main functions of the organisation. The policy is based on the need to rethink security following the 9/11 attacks, which clearly indicated that deterrence efforts by national armies from crossing the borders of NATO are not effective in the light of the modern security threats (Nikitina, 2012). Such policies are necessary in the achievement of transformation of the Alliance in the face of such threats. NATO has been involved in a number of interventions internationally, among them being the mission in Afghanistan, dubbed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The Resolution 1386 of the United Nations Security Council established the NATO-led security mission in December 2001. The primary objective of the mission was to offer training to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), together with assistance to the country in rebuilding its main government institutions. The mission also engaged in the war with rebel groups that started in 2001 and is still ongoing (Nikitina, 2012). This is a clear indication of the military policies and the main role of the Alliance. Conclusion The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an example of a regional alliance with the primary objective of ensuring both regional and international peace and stability. It is generally an intergovernmental military organisation or alliance which came into force in 4 April 1949. The organisation operates within the premise of the international law coming up with military and other policies geared towards achieving this objective. The alliance comprises a collective defence system where the members have an agreement towards common defence. Since its formation, the organisation has come up with various military policies, the latest being the NATOs 2010 Strategic Concept. It has also undertaken military missions, one of these being the ISAF. These are clear efforts of the alliance, working under the United Nations Charter, to ensure peace, security and stability internationally.
NATO was nothing but a weapons platform of the Cold War. It's mission was the fight and kill Soviet soldiers. With the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO no longer had a mission, it became obsolete. The United States should have withdrawn from the alliance. But those in America who didn't support NATO during the Cold War (The New Left) decided to expand NATO after the Cold War. (That was the Clinton administration and Clinton's Sec. of State, Madeleine Albright, Hungarian born who lived under Soviet occupation and has a big chip on her shoulder when it comes to Russians) Russia asked to join NATO, Clinton said no way jose. Then NATO put it's troops on Russia's western borders. Russia thinks, we are not allow to join NATO, NATO's mission must still be to kill Russians. Fast track to the Obama administration, remove a Russian friendly government in the Ukraine and replace it with a pro western European government and then talk about bringing the Ukraine into NATO. That would mean NATO on both of Russia's western and southern borders. What's the purpose of NATO ? To kill Russians so they say. What does Putin do ? Thanks Clinton and Madeleine Albright. What led to the First World War ? European treaties and alliances between countries.
And we see there is a monster still lose, Putin. Good thing NATO stayed together, as we can see there will always be a reason for so long as there is a Russia. Yes, that is what NATO is about to fight Russian aggression, and as we see it is still needed.
It's just an alliance - to train together, mutual defense etc. It would be silly not to have it.... since they share the same ideology and economy (the two things wars are 'really' fought over). Splitting NATO just gives more room to grow differences, instead of keeping NATO and growing relationships, friendships and peace. Russia needs to prove himself, and the fatherland of Putin has proven just the opposite.
When the NATO frogs found a dragon in Libya, they ran out of bombs. I'm sure Putin noticed that. When the Germans in Afghanistan didn't go outside the wire and just drank beer and ate brats, I'm sure Putin noticed that. When Putin is playing chess on the geopolitical chess board and Obama is playing checkers, the whole world notices it.
I would love to see a reference to that. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union Russia has had an envoy to NATO in an advisory position, but they have never tried to actually join NATO. The closest they have gone is in helping to form and join the Partnership for Peace, an informal alliance between NATO and former Warsaw Pact members. And that membership goes far beyond NATO. Even the Swiss, who are not members of NATO are members of the Partnership for Peace.
I'm would have to go beyond googling because it was before the World Wide Web (WWW) and not everything is on the internet as some think. You were around when the collapse of the Soviet Union happened and we won the Cold War. G.H. Bush (41) was POTUS at the time and he did start making some draw downs, the B-52's and B-1 were no longer taking off from SAC bases every hour 24/7 flying towards the USSR and if there was no war they turned around and returned to base while other B-52's and B-1's were taking off. Bush even put the Iowa's BB's into mothball to wait for the next time they were needed to be reactivated. You had the left calling for a peace dividend. Not so much decreasing defense spending but keep taxing and instead taking money that use to go to fight the Cold War and taking that money and redristributing it to social programs and those who have the government monkey on their backs because they been yelling they don't want to work and need a fix. But you heard people saying the Cold War is over so bring our troops home from Europe. Then the question was, what's the mission of NATO if they no longer have a mission and an enemy ? I found this article on the FAS website, it was written back during the late 1990's. NATO'S LAST CHANCE The West Should Invite Russia to Join NATO, Eliminating Bilateral Tensions as a Result (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 26. In full.) Alexei ARBATOV, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma's Defense Committee (YaBLoko faction) >" The West, which is now moving to ensure NATO's eastward expansion, has created a big problem for Moscow and itself. (By all looks, this decision will be formalized by various decisions of the North Atlantic Council in the spring and summer of 1997 -- Ed.) We can argue forever whether this move threatens Russian security. Countless statements dealing with this issue have been made over the last few years. Numerous books and articles have also been written. In the long run, all arguers have failed to convince each other. But one thing is clear. Russia, which openly opposes NATO's expansion, will simply have to retaliate. For its part, the West, which favors such expansion, will have to take certain counter-measures, moving to expand the bloc and military-integration programs still further. Many influential Western statesmen, who can hardly be called liberals, say that NATO's decision to go ahead with its expansion program amounts to the biggest mistake made by the USA and its allies after the Cold War. But one finds it most difficult to rescind the most imprudent and irrational political decisions. The thing is that their irrationality is not affected by logical arguments and rational reasoning. Any particular decision, which being pushed through by heterogeneous and often incoherent interests and fallacies begins to snowball. The 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the US involvement in Vietnam, the USSR's involvement in the Afghan war and the Chechen show-down are a case in point. As a result of NATO's expansion, the post-Cold-War period might well come to an end throughout 1997, ushering in an era of a new European division and confrontation. This can happen despite that incipient 1996 stabilization, which was made possible by the victory of Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton, as well as by peace in Chechnya and Yugoslavia. Many people, including those in favor of NATO's expansion, understand this only too well, trying frantically to mitigate the consequences of that move. New "charters" and friendship declarations, as well as agreements dealing with the non-deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members, the subsequent reduction of conventional forces, "super-partnership", etc., are now being suggested. All these ideas are not bad at all. They might even be useful in some conditions. However, they fail to strike home in the obtaining situation. One gets the impression that they are simply intended to sweeten the pill (as far as Moscow is concerned). The main problem is that it is now intended to expand NATO over the entire European continent (with the exception of Russia and contrary to its objections). NATO's projected eastward expansion would be expected to replace the bipolar military balance of the Cold-War period, as well as the common European home concept that had been dreamed of by Gorbachev, Mitterrand and Brandt. Still it ought to be mentioned in this connection that the Cold War would not have ended without Moscow. The same is true of the demise of Eastern European Communism and that newly-acquired and unprecedented Western European security. Consequently, all those conciliatory prizes now being offered to Russia don't make any sense all by themselves. Such prizes will become something effective only if they are used to untie the tight knot of the central problem, which has been aggravated by NATO's decision to expand eastwards. As I see it, the obtaining situation can be resolved in the following way alone -- NATO should extend a personal invitation to Russia, asking this country to join the bloc in line with specific terms, forms and timeframes that, in turn, should become a subject of negotiations in line with the Sixteen Plus One formula. The appropriate North Atlantic Council declaration should list this proposal right after the invitation to Poland, the Czech Republic and other "first-line" candidates to join the bloc. One can expect quite a few objections on this score. Among other things, people say that, according to NATO, no country is excluded from the list of prospective members; for its part, Russia should simply apply for such membership. However, Russia is not satisfied with this arrangement. Naturally enough, all countries enjoy formal equality. In real life, though, one can't deny the fact that Russia had made the greatest contribution to ending the Cold War, making the most impressive and painful geopolitical and military sacrifices. As of today, Russia has found itself in the most vulnerable and difficult situation. Besides, future European security and stability depend on Russia to the greatest possible extent. Consequently, an individual invitation from NATO would not amount to a big sacrifice on the bloc's part. It doesn't hurt to renounce some formal principles when the game is worth the candles. Still others may say that the admission of our huge Russia into NATO would demolish that bloc. In their opinion, that would be reminiscent of an old Russian fairy tale about a bear, who had destroyed a house. Still one should keep in mind that specific membership terms and forms should become a subject of separate talks. This issue will become something irrelevant, in case the concerned parties fail to strike a deal. On the other hand, NATO should admit Russia, provided that it meets concrete and agreed-upon membership terms, all the more so as we are being told that NATO will gradually evolve from a military bloc for defending its members against a common enemy into a system of multilateral integration and security that would be designed to tackle peace-keeping tasks, in the first place. God himself was willed that Russia should become involved in such a system. People might object that Russia's admission into NATO would cause it to completely lose independence, with some US generals commanding its Armed Forces. But the thing is that no country can be forced to join NATO. Russia's possible NATO membership, or its refusal to become integrated into NATO, will depend on Russia itself. The same is true of specific membership terms. Harsh terms would induce Russia to keep away from NATO and to think of other forms of mutual interaction. "< http://fas.org/man/nato/national/msg00003c.htm
Oh, I remember that era all to well. Even Tom Clancy made some joked in his books hinting that Russia and the CIS might become members of NATO. But nothing officially was ever done among those lines. During most of the Clinton Administration, Russia was a complete mess that seemed only half a step away from collapse and anarchy. And of course the memories of some people are really freaking short. They hear of a Russian bomber approaching the coast of the US now and go ape(*)(*)(*)(*), as if it had never happened before. And ironically, the vast majority of them who were born during or after the Reagan Administration, so have absolutely no concept of what the "Cold War" was like for those of us who lived through it.
We already touched on when the Los Angeles basin like most major cities in America were surrounded by NIKE SAM sites during the Cold War until they were deactivated during the early 70's on another thread. After the Cold War and when Russia started opening up their archives many were surprised to find out that during most of the 1950's throughout the 60's and 70's the Russians usually had a Soviet sub about six miles off of LAX and El Segundo. (Back then the U.S. territorial waters were only 3 miles, today it's 12 miles.) They would gather intelligence, listen to KFWB News Radio and imperialist rock n roll on KHJ. Pop up the periscope and watch Douglas DC-8's, Lockheed Electras and Boeing 707's taking off from LAX. Today there might be a Russian sub twenty miles off of L.A. gathering intelligence and who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*), that's what navies do. We are doing the same thing.
Or even more importantly, KFI. This has probably been the most important radio station in LA since broadcasting started. A 50,000 watt clear channel station, it's regular coverage area stretches to Fresno, Las Vegas, and Mexico. But at night it can be picked up across most of the country. And it's placement at 640 was also exactly where CONELRAD said you should turn to in the event of an attack (the other was 1240). Interesting bit of trivia, how many have looked at a "Cold War" era radio, either car or home, and noticed 2 triangles or circles on the dial? These are not random, they were the 2 "CONELRAD" designations, an early form of Emergency Broadcast System - Emergency Alert System to alert the public in the event of a nuclear attack. All stations would tune to those 2 bands for broadcasting (so attacking bombers could not home in on any one signal), and people would tune to one of those two for all information. Of course, I had heard of CONELRAD long before I learned this piece of information. I loved the now politically incorrect humor of Bill Dana (Jose Jimenez) when I was a kid, and asked my dad what the joke was about one bit when I was around 10, and he told me about CONELRAD, which was already gone by the time I was old enough to know what it was. [video=youtube;7qTeyJb6XOg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qTeyJb6XOg[/video] http://www.sharonghamari.com/comedy/BillDanaCivilDefenseWarden.MP3
KFI. I've been told the FI in the radio call sign represented "Farm Information." Are you old enough to remember the last Friday of every month at exactly 10:00 a.m. when ever air raid sires went off ? If you were in grade school, this is when you ducked and covered under the desk while looking at Judy Rotten Crotch panties. >" Like many aspects of the Cold War, Civil Defense Sirens became part of peoples daily lives. In Los Angeles, sirens were tested in unison at 10 a.m. on the last Friday of every month. Typically placed atop tall fire stations or attached to 30-foot steel poles, residents would hear a loud blast from the sirens; an experience many still talk about today..."< L.A.'s Civil Defense Sirens >" The Civil Defense Siren was first conceived of during World War II following the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the number of sirens and siren systems in most cities spread much more rapidly during the Cold War. Federally distributed pamphlets and films, aimed at educating both adults and children, would spread the word of what to do in case of an alert. Although siren systems were typically controlled by local governments or police departments, the sirens were built by outside companies with a vested interest in increasing sales. Sales brochures often illustrate the efforts to make money, and the influence of previous warfare on the development of such warning systems. While the hypothetical image of nuclear war often followed from early bombing techniques of WWII, Cold War warning systems manufacturers had to contend with the development of military technology. Early warning and defense systems built as responses to bomber planes could spot potential threats hours before they were actually in the position to drop their bombs. While defensive systems like the Nike Ajax and Hercules missiles had been developed to defend against such scenarios, with the introduction of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, such short range defenses not only became obsolete, but the window to warn entire populations dwindled to a matter of minutes. While many countries eventually adopted more complex warning signals that incorporated a color coding, the most basic systems incorporated a simple two-part signal design:...< http://www.coldwarla.com/sirens.html
When NATO comes, civilians die, that's enough to say. but I like to add: after NATO, American and EU companies (western billionaires) are coming to exploit oil and other resources. so, it is clear who profits from NATO. rich people are smart, wars are financed from budgets and after that rich people get contract to exploit oil. rich people don't pay for NATO than society pay for NATO, but rich people profit and poor stay poor.
NATO bombing stopped the bloodshed and the genocide happening in the Balkans. Rag on the US and NATO all you want but you can't hide or confuse this salient fact. Hundreds of thousands more would have died if NATO bombing hadn't brought the Bosnian War to an end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
you want to say that it is better to be killed by NATO than by somebody else, stopping war with killing people is surely not objective standpoint. the rest are presumptions, how many people would die if NATO didn't mix itself. if I follow your logic, if I don't shoot you today, maybe tomorrow you will kill 200 people, but it is maybe, and I can use maybe to justify my killing of you (to come into your house and make business there, as western politicians do). Madeline Albright and even Petraeus, many have private companies after politics, and look accidentally, they make business in former Yugoslavia where they mixed their fingers in the past.
As simply as possible, tell me like I am little boy, who are the Serbs fighting? Muslims? If so, why wasn't Serb (If I'm not mistaken) President Milosevic hailed as a Freedom Fighter by the West?
