Talk:Enlargement of NATO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject NATO (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of NATO on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ukraine public opinion[edit]

The sentence "Current public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is not clear" is not only misleading, but it's original research. I've been google searching for the past 20 minutes, and every single poll result I find has the exact same results, that the majority are against joining, and less than a quarter are for. Therefore, the sentence "According to various independent polls conducted in 2008, public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is low with the majority against joining the military alliance," is completely truthful, backed up by multiple reliable sources, and represents the majority view. Government conducted polls cannot be used as an excuse to say public opinion is "not clear". We must use common sense in that one dubious and contradictory government conducted poll shouldn't be given undue weight in the overall consensus of public opinion and composure of the wording.Enairku (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I put that first sentence back it wasn't because I believed the government poll any more than the others, but that I wanted to see a poll conducted since the August troubles in Georgia before we said "Current" opinion was one way or the other. Feel free to update with any polls you find.--Patrick «» 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, I haven't seen any polls conducted after July, but that doesn't mean current public opinion is unclear. Whether or not the Georgia conflict had an impact on public opinion is complete speculation and should have no effect on what we write in this article. Enairku (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found one conducted this month, interesting results. Enairku (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro: Liberal party reasoning[edit]

Presently, there is a remarkable reasoning in the Montenegro part:

"Nearly all present political currents support NATO admission. The exceptions include (...) the Liberal Party of Montenegro which favors military neutrality to the type of Iceland."

Iceland is a member of NATO, so how can Iceland be used as an example? Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I removed Iceland from that sentence, which probably refers to Iceland's cool reception to the EU. The sentence itself needs a source, especially for a weasel word like "nearly all".--Patrick «» 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support and Opposition in current members[edit]

How about a adding a section about support and opposition of expansion among current member states? --Amcalabrese (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do the maps in this article show Kosovo to be a country?[edit]

Hopefully a wiki respected editor will answer and not some radical extremist Serb or Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.75.157 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The law interpretation is in the hands of superpower (US) or great power (Russia). This article is wrong when it maps Kosovo as an independent country because Wikipedia is not a political institution such as UN, US, EU so it can't redraw Europe map like countries in the world. The Wiki admin is responsible for this fault.

I hope Wiki admin admits its mistakes. If it redraws Serbia map it also redraw Georgia map when Russia recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buianh (talkcontribs) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the relevant Wikipedia rule in this situation is whether the organisation in question, here, NATO, recognises the polity/country, here, Kosovo, as an independent state or not. The precedent will be in all the MOS rules regarding Taiwan. I'll go and have a look.

Buckshot06(prof) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked, I believe WP:MOSKOS is a much of a rule as we have on the topic. It would be best to lay your arguments out there, then eventually we'll get a rule applying to all Kosovo articles. Buckshot06(prof) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Kosovo, the Wikipedia rule is absolutely wrong and unacceptable and should be changed. Taiwan recognize Kosovo because it's US's ally and seeking to divorce from China and want to be recognized as an independent country.

I want to repeat that Wiki respected admin should change its attitude to Kosovo and respect international law. UN (proxy superpower), US, EU are not organisations to decide whether or not a country has its own sovereign, independence, intergral territorry. I remind Wiki admin that Vatican City is an independent country and not recognised by the UN through treaties athough UN and Vatican has close contact.

So, the Wiki rule is de facto but not de jure. If so, its other artices should take Abkhazia and South Ossetia out of Georgia map. Buianh (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you realise that 'wiki admin' includes yourself? That's exactly what the Village Pump is for. In any case, I checked with a very experienced user, Kirill Lokshin, and he suggested that if one wishes to clarify the status of WP:MOSKOS and if/when it will be adopted, you take it up with someone like User:SandyGeorgia, who is involved with these kinds of issues. Buckshot06(prof) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is independent. Get over it. This country has been de facto independent for a long time, and finally got formal recognition from countries that have over 2/3 of world GDP. UN does not decide whether a country is sovereign or not, that's silly and history agrees with my point of view. There is no such thing as "international law", wake up. In international relations might makes right, and the rest are just guidelines that countries can respect or not, and if they don't nothing happens. Unless, some country can enforce it, not by a law but by being stronger. This means that if US wants to break any or all 'international laws' it can, and - nothing happens. If law can't be enforced, it's not a law. It's a list of good wishes. But if you don't want to listen, fine, go ahead, fantasize all you want. I'm sure that until UN votes on it, gravity won't work either. Oh wait.. JosipMac (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Map of potential members[edit]

This article contains a map of potential members of nato, which has several categories which relate the attitudes of the countries toward Nato membership. I would just like to suggest that maybe there should be two categories of members which are not interested.... One category would be Neutral countries that are incompatible with NATO (Austria, Switzerland, etc), and the other would be Russia and Belarus, which are in competing military alliances or are otherwise antagonistic towards NATO. 142.192.10.50 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about doing that. There are a few reasons why I don't get into more detail with regards to the map and a given nation's color. Countries like Ireland and Austria are very proud of their neutrality with regards to NATO, while Sweden and Finland are proud of their active participation in most NATO missions. Russia and Belarus are sort of the opposite of neutral towards NATO. I also note that the places I have as "Undecided" (Cyprus, Kosovo, Moldova, and Azerbaijan) could arguably be red as well, since none is actively trying to join, and this is probably the solution, to make all the rest grey. I don't like trying to read emotions into Wikipedia. The map primarily shows the status of a countries application.--Patrick «» 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine pie chart[edit]

Today I removed this pie chart from the Ukraine section for the second or third time. I don't find it particularly attractive, and feel it looks out of place, since none of the other sections have any form of chart or graph. I also don't find it particularly easy to read, and feel the information is better presented in text format, which is now included in the paragraph. Thoughts?-- Patrick {oѺ} 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of wikipedia is to inform people. Charts and graphs can be found on thousands of wiki pages, and I don't see why this one should be any different. I don't think it's proper to remove an informative graphic from an article just because you personally don't like the way it looks. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since you keep trying to remove it and it keeps coming back, obviously not everyone agrees with you, which means you should not keep trying to remove it. You need a better reason to delete it than your personal opinion on aesthetics. (However I'm not suggesting you start improperly citing wiki policies to get your way, that would not be good.) LokiiT (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I do realize it's an argument to avoid, but images are still an aesthetic choice, and that policy is really more for text or whole articles. And I also realize, LokiiT, that you are the only editor to put it back, but I was being polite. The actual file itself has issues. First, you can't read it from the thumbnail, neither the numbers nor the description. It should certainly be rendered as an SVG, and I also worry about using a Microsoft chart template. And while I don't mean to question the Russian agency which did the poll, I don't know why we should use that one and not another. It does seem that you picked the poll with the single lowest level of NATO support.
I feel the whole paragraph on charts should be summarized with one or two sentences, and a table should be created on the subpage, Ukraine–NATO relations, like the opinion poll tables seen on so many election articles. This would be a much better way of displaying information without either picking and choosing which poll to highlight or having a lengthy, number loaded paragraph here. Is that something you could help with?-- Patrick {oѺ} 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Why do you say that policy is more for text? I think it goes for any type of content.
2. You usually can't read charts by their thumbnail. That's why one can click on it, to enlarge the picture if they're curious. But even so, I think reading the description one could easily guess that red = against, and blue = for. It's not that difficult to understand. Besides, the image is certainly better than nothing at all. That's what I don't understand. Why do you prefer nothing over something? Do you think people are going to leave the page in disgust at this horrible image or what?
3. I chose fom-Ukraine for no specific reason, only that they had the most up to date results at the time and I had to choose something. I don't know if you'll find any other independent pollster with vastly different results, give or take 3-4%. I don't appreciate the accusation that I chose that specific pollster for political/POV reasons because that's simply not the case. I could just as easily have used a Ukrainian source (albeit an outdated one), or a American-run gallup poll that shows almost half of Ukrainians view NATO as a threat, and only 15% view it as protection. But surely you don't want to add 2, 3 or 4 pie charts from different pollsters all with slightly different results?
4. Regarding shortening the length, I agree, and in fact I tried to do this some time last year. But I gave up on that because someone kept reverting my changes, accusing my summary of being biased against Ukraine joining NATO because I wrote that most people were against joining. That's why I ended up adding all those different poll results; to prove the point that every poll except the government run one shows the majority of Ukrainians against joining NATO. But yes, I do think it needs to be summarized rather than listing all the different poll results, as long as we don't revert back to a fictional depiction of the Ukrainian public "being split" on the decision, which is what it used to say. LokiiT (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
For those reasons there, yes, I do think no chart is better. It's a bad image. You didn't even remove the border on three sides or the large empty margins. Choosing any poll to make into an image will always be problematic. Election articles have consistently had issues with charts, particularly with individual polls, and I think that can be illustrative. And I'm sorry, but I don't see your edits from last year. Were you using a different account? I think if you used the term "most people" you would get reverted, since polls can only ever refer to the people polled. If I changed it to "opinion is split in nationwide polling, with opposition to NATO membership usually over fifty percent, and support for it usually close to twenty-five percent", would that offend anyone? I would also like to include in there somehow the mixed perception of NATO, which you mention there.-- Patrick {oѺ} 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The border issue can easily be fixed. That's a non-issue. As for it being a "bad image", well for goodness sake it's a pie chart, what do you expect? Why don't you improve it if you think it needs improvement? I think you're just being unnecessarily picky, and those are not valid reasons to remove it altogether.
Yes I was editing under a different account. I was editing under the name Krawndawg and later Eniarku. And as it turns out, it was you who reverted me. It originally said "Current public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is not clear", which is obviously untrue. I then edited it to say "According to various independent pollsters, public support in Ukraine for NATO membership is low with the majority of people against joining", which is a 100% truthful depiction, as all independent polls support this statement. And apparently you now seem to be agreeing with that. But back then, you reverted it back to the original untrue statement, which prompted me some time later to again correct it and add another poll to prove the point. And now you're complaining again, not about the statement this time, but about the abundance in polls which I needed in order to convince you that the statement was true in the first place. LokiiT (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to address some of the issues raised here. The image border issue is resolved, and I made the font bigger so you can just barely read the legend from the thumbnail. I also re-worded and shortened the paragraph on public opinion, and added the above mentioned gallup poll since I think it's relevant and of interest. Anymore suggestions? LokiiT (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Those edits are mostly fine, back then when it was fewer polls, I think it was easier to let three stand, whereas now there were five in the text plus your image. And again, polls reflect public opinion, and you can't say "the majority of Ukraine thinks..." only "the majority of those polled." Now, since the April 2009 poll is included in the text, I see even less point for a pie chart.-- Patrick {oѺ} 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Greece wasn't alone[edit]

Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany supported the Greek veto. So, Greece isn't the only one to blame. At the article, it seems like "Bad" Greece to be thw guilty for not-FYROM's entry to NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.251.34 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Map inconsistencies and other issues[edit]

In the map which illustrates future enlargement, considering what is written about Moldova, shouldn't it be coloured red to indicate "membership not a goal"?

Should something be written about Cyprus' aspirations possibly being vetoed by Turkey?

Also does anyone know anything about the relationship between Malta and the other microstates and NATO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.181.180 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moldova's recent interest[edit]

Moldova had elections recently, it's communist party has been voted out of office. Look at this article:

[1]

There is also the press conference the prime minister had with Hillary Clinton you can see it at www.state.gov.

It appears that if Prime Minister Vlad Filat has his way, Moldova will join NATO. Contralya (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Future enlargement[edit]

The section Future Enlargement contains a paragraph about Finnland. This paragraph should be merged with the appropriate paragraph of Relations with other countries - Finnland. It is also written in a none NPOV. Although it gives a reference most of its content is either copied from the reference in a worse than school book fashion, badly cited or made up without providing a source. This paragraph should be overworked or deleted. 92.78.124.28 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine[edit]

Ukraine has to be recoloured red in the map, because NATO membership is no goal anymore. (More a goal in Moldova than in Ukraine, in my opinion.) Can anyone change this?--Stefan040780 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just started a discussion about this file over at Talk:NATO#Enlargement map questions. But I don't think Ukraine should be red just because of Yanukovych. Its status under the Intensified Dialogue program hasn't changed, and nor has NATO moved to rescind its promise of future membership.-- Patrick {oѺ} 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Repeating what I said in the NATO discussion linked above: It has been made abundantly clear that NATO membership is not a current goal for Ukraine. Implying otherwise is misleading, regardless of NATO's "official status" on Ukraine. The map is to demonstrate each country's own intent, not NATO's desires, and right now both the leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian public are against NATO membership. LokiiT (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria, Ireland, Kosovo, Cyprus, Malta, Switzerland, Serbia[edit]

I think that we should have sub-sections for these in the "other relations" section - describing NATO relations, whether membership is a goal or not. It seems that Cyprus wants in, but Turkey objects (at least it objects Cyprus PfP participation); Kosovo wants in, but its status issue is the problem; Switzerland obviously sticks to neutrality; Ireland too; and what about Austria and Malta? Alinor (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

   Austria sticks to neutrality also, Malta doesn't seems to have any action around, but Serbia clearly opposed NATO and aligns them with Russia (due to NATO fought AGAINST them in the Bosnian War).--58.187.25.62 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine - Intensified Dialogue[edit]

I don't understand why the article is continuously edited to remove Ukraine from the ID list. The June 2010 decision of Ukraine not to seek NATO membership is relevant to its MAP aspirations, but not to the ID - Intensified Dialogue is an enhanced cooperation form, like IPAP vs. PfP-only - it does not guarantee (or include as goal) NATO membership for the participants. Anyway, if we are going to remove it from the ID list - I think that we need some source for official announcement (by Ukraine or by NATO) in this sense. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Intensified Dialogue is viewed as a additional stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP)" - This would be rather misleading to include Ukraine. LokiiT (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - before being invited, eg. it does not ammount to invitation to join. I agree that there is some ambiguity here, but if we look at the timeline - Ukraine got ID before making official request to get membership. It later made this request, but was not granted MAP and now the request is dropped, but I haven't seen any news about ID being dropped too... Alinor (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
ID is nothing more than a pretense to joining NATO. It serves no other purpose; what do you suspect the "dialogue" is about? The fact that Ukraine hasn't been formally dropped from ID means nothing in realistic terms. In fact, how do we even know? Do you think they'll make some big announcement about it? Unlikely. In order to continue including Ukraine in this category, we need an up to date source that specifically states Ukraine is still in ID despite its newly declared "non-alignment" stance. Then, if it is listed under ID, we need to make a note about that stance to make things completely clear. LokiiT (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There should be a note explaining this. Also, getting announcement in either direction is not very probable, but we can't just "assume" things... Maybe there would be some Ukraine or NATO document about overall "foreign relations", where among other things it would be mentioned what's the current status of Ukraine-NATO relations (besides not aiming membership)... Alinor (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey not partner but owner of NATO[edit]

I came across this article where the current Turkish Foreign Minister repeated for the third time that Turkey is an owner or NATO, rather than a partner. Can this be included somewhere?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-not-partner-but-owner-of-nato-fm-says-2010-10-30 Reaper7 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is a member state since the 50's. It is mentioned in the lead "During the Cold War, NATO grew with the admission of Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain." which I feel is inadequate since Greece and Turkey became NATO members practically right after founding members unlike Spain which joined NATO much much later. -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Surely this is just some translational issue. He probably meant that Turkey is a "member" (just like US, UK, Germany, etc.), rather than a "partner" (such as Armenia, Serbia, and Sweden). In other words I think he did not understand that in English the phrase "NATO partners" is often used for those countries that hold membership in the organization and is quite different from members of the "NATO Partnership for Peace". --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Weaselly, Woselly, Timey, Wimey[edit]

NATO is unlikely to invite countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland, where popular opinions do not support NATO membership. The policies of neutrality in these countries along with widespread public disapproval of membership make them incompatible with NATO.

This feels way too weaselly for comfort... -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Split off "Relations with other countries"[edit]

For several years now, I've lumped text on countries like Ukraine and Finland, which have dealt seriously with the political prospect of joining NATO over the years, in with others countries that just have relations with NATO, like India, whose had discussions with NATO regarding missile defense, not enlargement. This week, several empty sections and others with short paragraphs were added, again for countries that aren't looking to become NATO members. What do editors think about splitting off the "Relations with other countries" section into a new article, NATO relations with other countries or similar? We could move info there about countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, Australia, India and Mongolia, as well as summaries of other articles like Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Eventually, I would like to have an article on the newish Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme, which Mongolia and Switzerland have signed on for so far, but that could start as a section in the new article. Thoughts?-- Patrick, oѺ 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a great idea. This article should focus on states which have been discussed as potential full members. Other stats, which seek only to cooperate with NATO, would be better covered in a separate article. TDL (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a good idea to have NATO relations with other countries and Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme where relations not related to future membership are discussed. But the section "Relations with other countries" of the current article also includes content about discussions of future membership, so that falls in the Enlargement of NATO scope. If a split is implemented such content should be kept here and the NATO relations with other countries may link to the respective sections and/or include a brief summary. Japinderum (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, I wouldn't suggest removing information on countries where there has been historically, or even currently, an open discussion about membership. So under the heading "Membership debates" we might keep Finland, Serbia, and Ukraine, which are ones where we can point to specific parties and individuals with positions on NATO membership.-- Patrick, oѺ 19:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead with this split, since it didn't seem to attract any negative reactions. So subsections on Australia, India, Russia, etc are now located at Foreign relations of NATO. The four I left in place are Finland, Serbia, Sweden, and Ukraine under the heading "Membership debates" since domestic leaders and parties in these countries have historically debated NATO membership. Ideally, I'd like to build up the foreign relations article to be similar to Foreign relations of the European Union, or at least Foreign relations of the African Union, with a history section, a diplomatic missions section, and chart for the establishment of formal relations between the entities.-- Patrick, oѺ 18:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Colombia reference[edit]

Seems that it gets undue weight in the article. The president mentioned the possibility in the flow of a moment. The lower level US official gave a polite yet ambiguous response on it at most. On the same day several official statements were released to do officially rule out membership. So seems more like a political hiccup, not an official intention towards membership. Morgengave (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a Colombia section on Foreign relations of NATO that might be a better place for this info. I would say that to be included in the "Membership debates" section there has to be at least a political party or prominent government official advocating in favor of membership, and I'm not sure Colombia has that right now.-- Patrick, oѺ 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)