Talk:NATO

History of Membership / Original Members

This article does not include anywhere a concise listing of the orginal founding member countries of NATO in 1949. Actually, it is essential for understanding the deep history and nature of any organization to know at a glance what its original members were, and which ones joined soon therafter.
For example, to understand the United States, it is necessary to know what its original members were: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Rhode Island (the last of the 13 to join). Without knowing about this, one does not really understand much about the United States and its history at all.98.67.175.127 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map includes France, which is not a NATO member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.25.21 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

France has been a NATO member since the Treaty was signed in 1949. It did withdraw from the NATO military command structure in the 1960s, but that was not a withdrawal from the organisation. As you will see from Google News if you check, discussions are now underway to return France to the military command structure as well; they may assume command of Allied Command Transformation and Joint Command Lisbon. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 12:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

France returned to NATO military command structure in April 2009. Its nuclear force was left separate. The first paragraph should mention this as of now it only mentions the 1966 withdraw. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

The map showing EU and NATO membership incorrectly indicates that Switzerland is an EU member, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.81.210 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of NATO countries needs updated to reflect Albania and Croatia's membership. SpudHawg948 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They haven't joined yet, though. Buckshot06(prof) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Map Image

I know the map of Europe and North America were mashed together to make the map image look better (without a giant ocean between)... by why on Earth does Alaska appear to be as large as 50% of the continental USA?? Alaska may be our biggest state here in the USA, but it is not that huge! Who the heck made this map??

Probably a Mercator projection; distorts the size of land areas near the Poles. Buckshot06(prof) 05:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wouldn’t an orthographic map projection of the member-countries be better? Here’s a roughly-made example I’ve made:

Any suggestions and colaboration on the issue would be welcome.--MaGioZal (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Just Albania

The article states that " the former Warsaw Pact states - except Albania - joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004", are we forgeting the de facto leader of the Warsaw Pact, Russia? While Latvia and Estonia are NATO members (and Georgia and Ukraine will likely become members); Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other fmr Soviet Republics are not currently members of NATO. LCpl (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He's got a good point there! Dharma6662000 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo on maps

Two maps within the article disagree on whether there is an independent state of Kosovo, or there is no. Also please consider the South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the same legal state as Kosovo (i.e. recognized by part of UN members). AFAIK, part of NATO members recognize K. as independent, part does not, and none of them recognizes A. and S.O. as independent. Here are the maps in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/NATO_expansion.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Location_NATO.svg .FeelSunny (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the situation in South Ossentia and Abkhazia should be reflected. Wiki should be about conveying information - not as a forum for political and legal arguments. There can be an honest debate on how to label these realities but the information should be presented. The move of Georgia into the NATO structure under whatever term of art that relationship is identified with makes the fact that Russia and Russian backed indiginous forces control these territories very relevant. For the same reason, Kosovo and Transnistria should be shown too. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

NATO logo

It would be really nice if we could have a picture of that statue of the NATO logo, the one with iron beams sticking out from it. It's a really impressive piece of industrial art, shame not to have any pictures of it here. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Deputy Secretary General

This needs to be updated. Alessandro Minuto Rizzo has been replaced in 2007 by Claudio Bisogniero, who helds this post up to date. (Sebecq (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Confirmed: NATO biography of Bisogniero. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated, will add the other previous deputies to the list as well although will have to dig for nationality. Seems odd that theres been 3 Italians as deputy for over 14 years, anyone know why? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for editing

{{editsemiprotected}} Please, since the appropriate page has been created in Wikipedia, I would kindly ask to redirect the links (both of tehm) of the:

paragraph 7 Organizations and Agencies Third to last bullet - the Research and Technology Agency (RTA),[57] reporting to the NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO);

to the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Research_and_Technology_Organisation

Also, as according to the offical definition, I would suggest to change the spelling (in teh above mentioned lines and in the relevant reference at number 57) so to reduce ambiguity.

Thank you. ABwiki 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. I've also added a redirect to that article at NATO Research and Technology Organization so as to assist people who search with the other spelling of organisation. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

France re-entry into military command

France has re-entered NATO's military command, so everything relating to it's withdrawal needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.45.67 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Firstly, the official announcement is not yet been made, and second, all the material covering 1966 etc needs to stay; we just add some data saying that in 2009 France reentered and it seems that French officers will take command of Allied Command Transformation and Joint Command Lisbon. But we have to wait for the final formal announcement. - Buckshot06

Sarkozy's proposal must be debated by the French Parliament first, where it is expected pass next week. Regardless, the history will need to be revised.--Patrick «» 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The OECD Model

The same way as the OECD was first established between Europe and America and later extended to Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Mexico (Chile, Russia and Israel are candidates) it is expected for NATO to do the same including Australia, Japan, South Korea and probably Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.150.22 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is being said here.

Australia & New Zealand are officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country (CC) structure. Australia and NZ is also "linked" to NATO by virtue of the ANZUS and the FPDA treaties and US MNNA status. The NZ withdraw from ANZUS over nuclear weapons on US ships did not severe the Australian-NZ commitment. The USA has recently made statements that the schism with NZ is over. NZ special forces are in Afghanistan. This reality for example is recognized in France's Strategic White Paper completed in 2008 - http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/134828/1175142/version/1/file/LivreBlancGB.pdf

Japan is a sui generis situation. Its Constitution precludes any military alliance other than the USA-Japan mutual defense treaty (MDT). But it is officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country structure. Like Australia it too is linked to NATO by virtue of the Japan-USA MDT. Japan sent naval forces to the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghan war effort, which pushed very much at the edge of its constitutional limits.

Mexico is not part of any western alliance. It withdrew from the Rio Treaty due to the USA support of the UK in the Falkland War. The UK could have enacted Article 5 but chose not to allow the USA to avoid direct war with its ally and fellow Americans - Argentina. The USA does equip and train the Mexican military but Mexico is unlikely to pursue tighter bonds unless Communists in El Savador, Venezuela and Nicaragua arm up, deploy foreign forces, or arm large insurgencies into Southern Mexico like they have in Peru and Columbia.

Chile is linked to NATO by virtue of its MNNA status with the USA, its active participation in RIMPAC and its deployment of forces under NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo. Chile is specifically listed on NATO's website as a contact country (aka Global partner). Its relationship to NATO is close to that of Japan, Australia, NZ and Korea. If the Rio Treaty completely breaks down over a Bolivian or Honduran civil war, war between Venezuela and the other communist South American states and allies of the West: Columbia, Chile, Peru, Panama, etc then it is likely that some institution will emerge in South America to formalize the democratic alliance there. If Cuba and Venezuela get their way and turn ALBA into a 21st Century Warsaw Pact of Communist states, NATO's eyes will turn to South America to an even greater degree. French Guiana in South America is a NATO and EU member as a part of France. The USA is now building a massive new military base in Surinam and has reactivated the 4th Fleet.

Korea is a "Partner" of NATO in the CC structure. It is linked to NATO via the US-Korea MDT. Korean forces have operated under NATO command in Afghanistan. The Cold War NATO we knew, came into existence due in part to the allied joint operations during the Korean War. Then non-NATO Turkey contributed significantly to the allied Korean War effort, and was later brought into the alliance. France maintains a One Korea Policy which recognizes the Republic of Korea as the sole legitimate government of the Korean people. The precident created by the PRC's demands on the world for One China and tossing the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the UN and the Security Council has implications for the ultimate fate of the North Korean regime and the eventual reunification of Korea.

Israel is a "Partner" of NATO through the Med Dialogue. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is specifically NOT in NATO's scope of concern. NATO is working with numerous countries in the region to prepare for any NATO peacekeeping role supporting any some future comprehensive peace. NATO works with the Palestinian Authority as well and they could be brought into the Med Dialogue officially in the future. Jordan and Egypt also carry the Palestinian cause within NATO via their partnership status.

Russia is a "Partner" of NATO through the Partnership for Peace and other European institutions. This relationship is strained but official. Russia was brought into this relationship partly as a solution to the conflict created by the eastern EU and NATO expansions which from Russia's point of view violated understandings they had from the West. In June 2009 NATO and Russia announced a new initiative to return to a commitment to partnership and working through security issues. Obviously, the hope in the future is for a stable, liberal, democratic Russia that could come into the West's institutions as an allied member. The situation in Georgia is dangerous and both sides are seekign a mechanism to reduce tensions and risks. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Proposed NATO Wikiproject

Hi there, I've recently proposed a NATO Wikiproject to cover all things NATO. If you'd be interested in helping get one started, head over to the nomination page and voice your support. Cool3 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The NATO WikiProject has now been established! Please join us! Cool3 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Enlargement section

There is a notice "citation needed" for the following sentence:

Other potential candidate countries include Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina.

I have found two links on NATO official web site to support this claim:

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-montenegro/index.html

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-bosnia-herzegovina/index.html

Ravenlord (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The word should be "appease" rather than "appeatise". This sentence could be a bit more formally written too and a citation would be good re the claim for Francee and other "big" countries.

Ozeye 10:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Euro-Atlantic Partnership

In this section Bosnia and Herzgegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (all as part of Yugoslavia) were not "Other Cold War socialist economies" but "Militarily neutral Cold War socialist economies" because Yugoslavia was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement and never a part of the Eastern Bloc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.16.218 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

History split

I'm thinking the History section is long enough could be split into a History of NATO article, with a new, perhaps simpler and more chronological, three to five paragraph summary of events used on this page. Thoughts? Anyone interested in creating this summary? I added an official Split Section Template. I also think this would help maintain Good Article status.--Patrick «» 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, fully support the suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm on second thoughts if we did remove most of the history content and replaced it with 3-5 paragraphs i think this article might be too short. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, say 10-12, or what it takes. Right now there's 37 paragraphs over 11 subsections. We could try to balance a new section into Beginnings, Cold War, and Post-Cold War. Info on historic enlargements and maybe France's withdrawal could even be in the Membership section. Right now there's lots of good info in History, but some, say the paragraph about weapons gauges or Able Archer 83, are unnecessary for an overview.--Patrick «» 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Right now the page is 72k. Before I got on top of the bloat in March it was at times over 100k - 110 at times. I think we can keep adding relevant sourced material - and there's masses missing - until we reach 90k at least. Then we can think about it again. This is also because at some point we'll need Hist of NATO 1948-60s maybe, 60s-1990/91, and Post Cold War/War on Terror whatever we call it. Lets not split without a plan. Thoughts? Buckshot06(prof) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not without a plan. And again, thanks for your work. Perhaps I or one of us could mock up an outline soon. I also think we could split off the section into a new article while keeping most of the important paragraphs intact. While it would be nice to rewrite the section, possibly improving references along the way, there's no really issue with having some of the same information on two pages.--Patrick «» 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Public attitude towards NATO in Russia

According to Interfax/BNS/Postimees, 58% of Russians have a negative attitude towards NATO. Interestingly, at the same time, NATO's nature is not well known in Russia: for example, 31% of the population thinks NATO's mission consists of "aggressive actions towards other countries". 34% have no idea what NATO is.

Source: Postimees 3 April 2009 13:56: Venelased ei salli NATOt, kuigi ei tea, mis see on. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that "aggressive actions towards other countries" are indeed part of NATO's mission. See for example, what they did in Serbia or what the are doing in Afganistan. Or what was their reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war was. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get dragged into pointless political arguments guys. Writers in Chelyabinsk will have different attitudes to writers in Rio, or Sydney, or Lahore, or whatever. Maybe we should add the data above, but not POV posturing. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

they're lke the crusaders, setting up states whereever they want. bombing serbia was not justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep it NPOV, NATO, outlined in it's charter, is for collective defense, Afghanistan, was invaded because we were attacked by terrorists being harbored in that nation,I assume Offliner, and 203.217.59.87 are Russians?--Conor Fallon (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticism?

I see bits and pieces of this throughout the article, but there should be a section dealing with the criticism of NATO and enlargement. Most of the article is to the point of being boistrous. MPA146.235.130.52 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at Enlargement of NATO. That's the place for enlargement discussions. Controversy and criticism should not be separate but in the relevant section. Buckshot06(prof) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot06. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Other articles about various subjects and organizations have their own criticism/controversy section and this seems appropriate here as well. This is because sometimes there is a collective argument and because sometimes the scale of the criticism is noteworthy itself (i.e. when tens of thousands riot and burn the French/German border in protest). --Nihilozero (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need its own section, the criticism should be included in each of the sections covered. So killing of civilians in Afghanistan covered in the ISAF section etc. There should however be a section or atleast a few sentences talking about NATO summits, and that could include a mention that they often draw large crowds of scum who protest and turn violent. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism / controversy should always be integrated into the article as a whole. Splitting it to its own section inevitably reduces the quality and neutrality of an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, many articles have a criticism section. Integrating minor criticism into an article is okay at times but it results in perspectives that can become difficult to follow. (ie. flip-fops, however...however...however...however). A strength of Wikipedia is that it is not shy of having contentious material. There should, at least, be a summary of a main article Criticism of NATO. 172.130.206.193 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An article like that would rapidly become an unmaintainable dumping ground, which is why such articles are generally avoided. I maintain that criticism/controversy sections almost always lead to lower-quality articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't expect the casual reader to read the entire article just to find out if there are any controversies. I won't, at least. And since I didn't find out what I wanted, I think this article is a failure. This is an encyclopedia where you look things up, not a book you read from cover to cover. Sorry that I'm being blunt. I'm sure this is a great article for those who do read it all.--Nakerlund (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I see the article has gone over to US spelling. Considering NATO was set up by the British and itself uses UK spelling this is rather puzzling, especially as the article itself was originally in UK English. Presumably there'll by no objection if I now change US spelling to UK ones in any articles I come across.

NATO uses the spelling "Organization" not "Organisation" - look at its Web site. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How can a military alliance be set up by one nation (the British)? The USA and Canada were also founding members.--Conor Fallon (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is quite dimwitted to suggest that NATO was set up by any ONE country, no matter which one that you name. Also, the Wikipedia is a non-profit corporation set up and governed by the laws of the United States of America, and the Wikipedia itself states that American copyright laws apply to it, and that the Wikipedia is maintained on Internet servers within the United States of America. It is thus an American encyclopedia, and American spellings must apply, regardless of what certain British and Irish people might think. Arguing with this is completely wrongheaded.98.67.175.127 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, that's incorrect. See WP:ENGVAR. Buckshot06(prof) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That IPs comments were stupid and certainly dont apply. However as it does use the American spelling of Organization on NATOs website we should use American English for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The IP's comments were stupid and don't apply. However, there's also some misunderstanding going on here so let me make a few points; first, organization is not an American spelling, it's the preferred usage by the OED amongst others. It'a actually a British English spelling, adopted now by much of the world, apart from, to a large extent, Britain - funnily enough. So the fact that NATO uses organization merely points to the international aspect of the "organization". Second point, NATO's official language variant is British, or international, English, so that's what this article should use (in effect it's BrE). Wikipedia has a prescendent in this area; the EU official English version is BrE, so all articles concering the EU should use BrE. Third point, whoever changed the spelling in this article was operating against policy. Such changes should only be made made if there is good reason (there isn't here) and if there is a consensus to do so (there isn't here). So, let's change it back please (keeping the z in organization), and have no more of this silliness. Mister Flash (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we're supposed to use the organis/z/ations own useage as the guideline, if I understand correctly, and different NATO agencies use different spellings - the NATO STandardization Agency is one that uses Zs, if memory serves correctly, for example. Make application of the rules difficult. Buckshot06(prof) 13:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's no problem here. We use "z". Nato as an organisation uses BrE, so we use that as well, including z's instead of s's. Mister Flash (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We should use Oxford British English with "z" spelling in Organis/z/ation. IJA (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW real-word British English is fairly inconsistent vis-a-vis use of 'z' or 's'. I personally don't think it is remotely as big a deal as center/centre, defense/defence etc. cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) --Xdamr^talk 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please add the British English pronunciation /'neɪ.toʊ/ as an alternative to the US pronunciation given. Andrewgdotcom (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

/'neɪd.oʊ/ was incorrect even for US English for two reasons:

• the "d" (sc. "t") belongs to the second syllable, not the first.
• the "d" should actually be a "t" in a phonemic pronunciation. Even those who pronounce "NATO" to sound like "playdough" do so as a result of Intervocalic alveolar flapping, whereby phonemic /t/ is weakened. And many of those same speakers would also realize ['neɪtoʊ] in more formal styles. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Text

The following sentence is garbled:

This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily.

There appears to be a chunk of text missing - could someone trawl the history and restore it? Thanks. Andrewgdotcom (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

I have done a GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I find the article to still meet the GA criteria and I have kept it as GA. H1nkles (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NATO/UN

When NATO goes on a mission, is it similar to a UN mission? Or are countries independently represented by soldiers? Unlike the blue helmets of the UN. I hope that was an English sentence :) Mallerd (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries are usually independent. But sometimes during official NATO missions, soldiers wear a NATO patch on their shoulders. It's mostly common in Europe. American soldiers generally only wear the US flag as a patch, nothing else. But most NATO missions don't always involve NATO-only members. See Afghanistan...it's a NATO-led mission. Not a NATO mission. Doesn't sound very different, but it is. In Afghanistan NATO directs most of the operations, aside from some US units which are under US-only command. The NATO-led mission has non-NATO members part of it like South Korea, Sweden, Colombia, etc etc. So in missions that include non-NATO members, no they don't wear anything specifically IDing them as NATO. It's just assumed for the most part that they are NATO.

Confusing, I know. But I hope that clears some of it up. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold War

The initial part of the article should mention NATO's position in the Cold War, that being its founding and fundamental position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.241.190 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

NATO-EU, Contact Nations

The relationship between the EU and NATO has evolved over time and change in recent years with France becoming more pro-Atlantic and the understanding of the EU's role inside of NATO. Today the EU's ESDP and NATO are "separable but not separate" and the EU can act on security matters only if NATO declines to do so. Under the EU's ESDP the six Non-NATO EU states have a sui generis relationship with NATO. It is ERRONEOUS to list Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta as "red" "membership not a goal" as they have de facto membership in NATO by virtue of their membership in the EU. What ever this relationship is correctly termed it is not "membership not a goal".

The four contact countries - Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand also have their own sui generis relationships with NATO. The wiki article states that this relationship is not formalized which is self-evidently incorrect since it is formalized under the definition of a contact nation. All four nations contributed military forces to Afghanistan under the USA's mutual defense enactment. 7o62x39 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

The NATO map of membership is inconsistent with wikipedia maps of other military/security organizations such as the CSTO and the SCO with respect to definitions of association. The SCO map list "observers". The non-NATO EU states should be catagorized as "ESDP associated states of NATO." The four contact nations should be catagorized as such and labeled as such on the map. Australia, whose forces in Kosovo were under NATO command is far more associated with NATO than India is with the SCO (India is listed as an "observer" on the wikipedia map of the SCO). 7o62x39 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

De Facto Global NATO

The article should include a discussion of the evolution of post Cold War NATO from a defend Europe/Turkey against the USSR/Warsaw Pact alliance to what it is today ... the primary organization within a spider web of multi-lateral and bi-lateral security agreements among the world's democracies which is replacing/substituting for the UN Security Council (blocked by Russia and China). NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. There are 42 nations operating in Afghanistan under NATO-ISAF being joined this year by Mongolia (a NATO Partnership for Peace member actively seeking closer security ties to the "West"), Columbia a NATO associate by virtue of its bilateral military relationship with the USA and it active participation in RIMPAC and connections to the Pacific security spider web ANZUS/FPDA/NATO-CC/the USA Mutual Defense Agreements (Japan, Korea, Philippines, and the Pacific Island nations), and India (nuclear tech pact with France and the USA).

Consider Chile - "Chile's integration into a worldwide military network led by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, however, is not limited to weapons purchases. The nation was one of only five non-NATO states to provide troops for the first-ever NATO out-of-area military deployment, Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia, in 1995 .... It has since participated in regular military exercises under the command of the United States and its NATO allies. ...

It participates in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises led by the United States and Britain, ... In 2008 the RIMPAC exercise included 35 ships, six submarines, over 150 aircraft and 20,000 troops from Chile, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea and Singapore, a NATO/Asia Pacific NATO/Latin American NATO nexus in embryo." - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13788

7o62x39 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Here are the non-NATO countries that have sent forces under NATO command to the three major operation NATO has conducted outside of the original NATO defense and operating area:

SFOR - Bosnia - 1998-2004 Australia Austria Argentina Chile Egypt Finland Ireland Malaysia Morocco New Zealand Russia Sweden

KFOR - Kosovo - 1999-Present Argentina Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Bosnia Chile Finland Georgia Ghana India Ireland Malaysia Mongolia Morocco Philippines Sweden Switzerland UAE

ISAF - Afghanistan - 2001-Present Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain (Naval) Bosnia Columbia Finland Georgia India Ireland Japan (Naval) Jordan Korea (Rep.) Macedonia Mongolia New Zealand Serbia Singapore Sweden Switzerland UAE Ukraine

Note that the four larger non-NATO member (although they are formally NATO "partners") EU states - Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden have sent forces to all three recent NATO operations. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Spelling (continuation)

Please see the debate above about AmE vesus BrE spelling in the article. To enlarge on it slightly here, the spelling in this article should be BrE, for the reasons I've noted above. At the moment it's a mixture and looks bad. So I intend to standardise on BrE (including z in organization). However, there may be instances in the article; direct quotations etc. where AmE should be used; hopefully I'll spot them all. If there's any doubt about NATO laguage usage please see their website. Mister Flash (talk)

NATO uses Oxford British English therefore so should this article. IJA (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) is Missing

The ICI is a formal dialogue and partnering program with the same status within NATO as the PfP, the Contact Countries (aka Global Partners: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand) and the Med dialogue. The ICI includes the six states of the GCC/PS - four of which have formally joined (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE) and two are preparing to do so (Saudi Arabia and Oman). NATO discusses this initiative carefully and it includes a potential role for NATO and the GCC working together through the ICI should a comprehensive peace be achieved between Israel and Palestine. NATO is careful to include the Palestinian Authority as a recognized entitiy with whom dialogue is occuring. NATO is preparing for security options that it may support should the UN authorize such a role in conjunction with a comprehensive peace. At present, NATO is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is not something that is part of NATO's scope. 66.182.3.61 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

What about Pakistan?

Can somebody add some info on that to the main article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan has no formal relationship with NATO. I find no indication of Pakistani forces operating in Afghanistan under ISAF (although interestingly India is sending forces to Afghanistan under NATO command in 2009). However NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan does communicate and coordinate on various operational and intelligence matters relating to both Afghanistan and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Region. This "cooperation" is a poker game with both sides having mixed motives.

Pakistan was a member of the Cold War era CENTO which was something like NATO operating in South Asia, but has since been dissolved. Pakistan is an idiosyncratic nation whose foreign policy and geopolitical strategy is complex. Pakistan has two major focuses which are unique to itself; the rivalry with India, both over the disputed region of Kashmir and as the protector of India's significant Muslim minority, and Afghanistan which itself is a complex mix of various ethnic groups the largest of which is virtually identical to many of the peoples of Pakistan's west. Pakistan also seeks influence in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) as a Muslim nation which helps it counter India strategically. (India has effectively countered this desire with its actions dating back before the Pakistani Civil War).

During the Cold War, Pakistan sided with the West, while India (although officially non-aligned) tilted towards the USSR. Pakistan's relationship with NATO happens indirectly by virtue of the USA-Pakistani relationship which itself is a marriage by necessity and circumstance. At the end of the Cold War, Pakistan was the conduit through which the USA, Saudi Arabia and others (including Pakistan) funneled resources to the Muslim Afghan resistance against the USSR backed Afghan communists. These forces also conducted offensive special operations inside the bordering Muslim republics of the former USSR. If Afghanistan was payback to the USSR for Vietnam, these ops were payback for El Salvador and USSR/Communist aggression in Central America during the 1980s. Pakistan knew well that the USSR's only strategic interest in Afghanistan was as a launching point to breakup or take over Pakistan (or Iran) and fulfill the USSR/Russian centuries old desire for access to a warm and open water port for its Navy. After the Soviet withdraw and the fall of the Afghan communists, the USA lost interest in the nation and Pakistan was left with the mess to manage. The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan took place in this period. Pakistan has long sought to transform Afghanistan into a de facto Pakistani vassal through support of the Pashtun ethnic group which is common to both countries. The Pashtuns comprised a significant element of the Taliban. The so called "moderate" Taliban which the Obama administration is seeking to split off and come to terms with is to a large extent, that element of the Taliban that Pakistan can control or at least influence.

Pakistan's 2009 offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating in western Pakistan required the USA to seek Indian cooperation. India recently announced it was removing troops from the Pakistani boarder and Kashmir, thus allowing Pakistan to send forces from the Indian border to the west.

Pakistan's need to counter the Indian nuclear capability and missile gap, created an alliance of convenience with North Korea. Pakistani nuke tech got exchanged for North Korean missile tech. Pakistani cooperation with North Korea has probably ceased since Pakistan now has sufficient tech in missiles and the cost to play with North Korea in terms of Pakistan's relationship with the West is high.

Pakistan also has a complex relationship with other Central Asian nations and China. Pakistan saw China as a second ally to the USA via the India-China rivalry (an enemy of my enemy is my friend). But this is complicated as both the Taliban and before that the USA/Saudi backed Muslim forces have links to the Muslim and Turkic Uighur peoples of Western China. Pakistani fingerprints are found on Uighur insurgencies inside China. At various times in the past, the USA has lent covert support to the Uighurs as a card to play when the Chinese acted elsewhere in support of communist insurgencies. (No doubt India as well is none too pleased with Chinese fingerprints on Indian Communist insurgencies and their overt support of the Nepalese Maoists). The July 2009 Uighur riots highlight the tensions inside China with respect to its Muslim minorities. Most probably the USA has ceased any support of the Uighurs as it seeks Chinese cooperation on North Korea and the USA's War on Terrorism (although Uighurs captured in Taliban camps and sent to Gitmo were subsequently released to Palau and Bermuda rather than returned to China). The USA also considers support of the Uighurs as a very high risk game given the implications of the vastly more critical Sino-American relationship.

The Korean situation also impacts Pakistan. China's North Korean gambit is very high risk and reckless. North Korea is the prime element of the Chinese game of talking peace and covertly promoting whatever chaos in the world drains the USA and the West (inclusive of Japan and the Republic of Korea). This all works to China's advantage to the extent they keep a lid on it. But the North Koreans are lunatics. Regardless, China made its choice and from the USA/Korea/Japanese point of view, China will be held responsible for North Korea, period. If the Korean situation gets out of control, the CIA will be talking to the Pakistanis about the Uighurs. If a North Korean nuke goes off anywhere outside a North Korean cave, USA nuke, missile (and more anti-missile) tech goes to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and India (especially if Pakistan balks on arming the Uighurs, given that a good portion of the North Korean nuke tech came from Pakistan. The USA and France's civilian nuke tech pacts with India was among many other things a card played on China and Pakistan for North Korea). Bottom line, Korea affects Pakistan.

Understanding Pakistan begins with a recognition that the Pakistani's are nationalists who play realpolitiks not internationalist liberal altruism and act in the interests of Pakistan; not any other power. Declaring Pakistan simply a tool of the USA completely misses the delicate game Pakistan plays under a very complicated set of regional circumstances and realities it does not fully control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Global NATO on North Korea

"the Alliance calls upon Pyongyang to fulfil its international obligations. The NAC urges North Korea to implement fully all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and to eliminate its nuclear weapons and related programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern." 7o62x39 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

2009 NATO Strategic Concept Initiative / Global NATO / Future Relationship of NATO Partners

The NATO article continues to fail to fully discuss and correctly describe NATO in 2009, not 1989. NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. The past issues of defense of European members' colonial possessions has evolved as they have shed most of what will be shed and via the evolution of the EU as well as their national political systems have tranformed these remaining possessions into politically incorporated regions. For example, French Guiana and Reunion are no longer French 1960s colonial possessions ambiguously related to NATO but are fully incorporated regions of the French state and the EU. That is, Reunion would be defended by NATO as an attack on France (and the EU) itself, just as an attack on Hawaii would be. The relationship between the EU and NATO has also evolved and was formalized by the Berlin Agreements and through other Atlantic and European institutions. Thus the non-NATO EU states are de facto, albeit sui generis, affiliated states of NATO, not members but not merely partners. By not becoming NATO members they are not treaty bound to Article 5 but in all other respects they act as members. The relationship with Japan, Australia, Korea and New Zealand has also evolved to something like that of the non-NATO EU states.

Excerpts from NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the opening of the strategic concept seminar, July 7, 2009:

"First and foremost, I hope the new Strategic Concept will finally lay to rest the notion that there is any distinction between security at home and security abroad. Globalisation has abolished the protection that borders or geographical isolation from crisis areas used to provide. Article 5, as I have said, can apply outside NATO territory as much as inside. Today the challenge is not to defend our territory but our populations; and they, unlike our territory, move around. Our challenge is not just to make our populations secure, but feel secure – a much more complicated task which, to my mind, necessitates a much better job of communicating NATO’s activities and real achievements to our publics.

At the same time, the new Strategic Concept should also reassure our new Allies that NATO takes its Article 5 collective defence commitment seriously; not just on paper but through planning and exercises as well as having the necessary capabilities to call on in crisis situations. Allies who feel secure at home are much more likely to transform their forces for expeditionary operations and send them to Afghanistan or elsewhere. Article 5 collective defence is, after all, the bedrock of the Alliance, and has been for 60 years. We should not feel bashful in discussing it in the Alliance. It is purely defensive. But we should not go overboard either. The situation in Europe does not call for military build-ups which would be counter-productive as well as wasteful. The threats to our security today lie mainly outside Europe, notably from extremism in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere. That must remain our focus whether it be reinforcing ISAF or reinforcing closer links with key neighbours such as Pakistan. This said, reassuring Allies who feel less secure than others in their immediate neighbourhood is not that hard to do; but we must do it. NATO cannot function in the long run with two types of membership: those who feel secure and willing to transform and those who feel less secure and are less willing. ...

A fourth concern has to do with partnerships. A commentator once spoke of NATO’s “partnership industry”. One of the things that I am most satisfied with during my watch has been the continued growth of NATO’s partnerships, particularly outside Europe, in North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf, and the Asia-Pacific region. A NATO without Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, or the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has become unthinkable. Many of our partners are with us today and will take part in our Strategic Concept debates. Rightly so, for Partners are no longer outside the NATO community, but inside; making indispensable contributions not only to the Partnership activities but also to NATO’s core business, such as military operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo or the Mediterranean. But I believe we are far from getting the best value out of our partnerships. Our political consultations beyond operations have too often become stale and ritualistic when there is so much quality analysis and experience that we should be exchanging on a regular basis. The value of our Partners to us must not be linked only to how many troops they contribute to ISAF or KFOR. Partners have an intrinsic value in their own right and we need to be much more imaginative in cooperating on other challenges: energy security, proliferation, cyber, terrorism – to name but the most obvious. Here again the new Strategic Concept has to move partnerships to the next generation." 7o62x39 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Major non-NATO ally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNNA I feel this section should be mentioned somewhere within the NATO article. Although not officially sanctioned by NATO, it is an official designation by the United States and carries with it military repercussions. Also, these countries participate and support a wide variety of NATO missions, so a brief mention should be included.

Disagree strongly. Belongs in the United States Department of Defense article, not the NATO article; it's 'non-NATO,' after all. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Buckshot, that US MNNA status is not directly relevant to this NATO article. That said every MNNA has a relationship of some form with NATO. The article would be improved by expanding the discussion of the relationships of NATO with its partners. The article could also discuss how NATO fits within the larger context of the overall security alliances, treaties and military exercises amongst the liberal democracies. The reality is that the NATO "Community" (NATO members and all of its partners and cooperating nations) is acting more and more like a de facto substitute/alternative to the disfunctional and corrupted UN and UN Security Council on issues of security.7o62x39 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

We need a much stronger and more detailed discussion of what NATO's cold war role and development was before we move into recent-ism like this. Whether NATO and its coalition partners are acting as an alternative to the UNSC is very open to debate: much of Africa does not agree with the UN's role in Somalia, and China and Russia would certainly argue that NATO is a virtual 'rogue alliance' rather than a postive security player. However, this is not what we're here for: we're here to improve the article. 7o62x39, please stop expanding our talk pages and add to articles. Wikipedia is not a blog. Buckshot06(prof) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Leader change

The leader is now Anders Fogh Rasmussen, not Jaap de hoop Scheffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.212.109 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

French in the lead

It's not necessary to have French in the lead. This is an English encyclopedia, and the English name is official. The reason to include alternative names in the lead is for clarity when the English version is not official. The French name is not important and it's cluttering the lead. Oreo Priest ^talk 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The French name is official to NATO, just like Arab, Chinese, French etc. are official to the UN and many languages are official EU languages. The common practice on Wikipedia is to reflect this in the infoboxes, and in the lead if there are not more than a couple other languages. - SSJ ☎ 13:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

France Chickened Out in 1950s but came back in 2009

The article should give more info as to why France chickened out, when the going was tough and the Soviet troops were ready to invade Europe during the 1950s. They wanted to strike a "peace" accord with the Russians, like their 5-star General Petain made with the Germans a decade ago.

It is interesting that they wanted to come back to this alliance now that the Russian threat is over. Are they now ready to fight in Afghanistan with a sizeable number of troops ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.93.75 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they "chickened out" as so much as realized their vision of a multipolar world (USA as one pole, USSR/Russia and possibly China as another, and France acted as a third pole) was a total pipe dream. They've made a lot of people mad in the US and Eastern Europe...and now they have an administration that isn't 1) a quasi-socialist "we are the world" party, and 2) worried about French supremacy. They're more in line with the Eastern Europe, US, UK way of thinking. Essentially de Gaulle is dead...and was a fool. They finally realize this now. Besides, it's easier and better in the long term to agree with the West than to try and pretend you're its leader by taking contrary view points to show how "independent" you are. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

==

==

add link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natochannel in resources