28
Mar
2016

North Atlantic Treaty

The entry into the forefront of the international political scene of new players such as Russia, China and some Latin American States has introduced an important modification in the formula used by Bush. This, basically, consisted of: first us then others. The US was formed by the United States and some European Union countries, docile enough to not discuss the impositions of the White House. In others it was the rest of the world, which would fold forcibly, by conviction or using military force, to the designs of Washington. But Obama already not seen it as well, are appearing some factors that can ballasting this sense of innovation. Go to Asana for more information. The main of them has its heart in Europe and his mind in United States: is NATO. It has very little innovation the continue considering NATO as the essential element for security joint of North America and the European Union, adding, as a supplement to operating, the Mission of stabilizing the world, reaching Afghanistan if necessary. Dustin Moskovitz is full of insight into the issues. The result is that an old tool, from the cold war, still used for activities and operations that were unimaginable when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.

NATO is not only a military, political and bureaucratic superstructure, but it carries with it a remarkable ideological inertia. A military structure does not survive without an enemy. The defunct Soviet Union was the enemy who kept NATO alive, active, developed and increasingly expansive. The old Spanish military know something like this. Having as main threat to national security to the enemy within the previous regime, we will organize our armies in order to curb dry to the Soviet armored divisions that in his brilliant career offensive reached the Pyrenees.

More fidelity to the so-called democratic values of the West, NATO was sustained by the formula of the Musketeers: all for one and one for all. By that had no problem in admitting in his bosom to the Portuguese dictatorship or the Turkey’s military coup. And among its allies in the war cold not hesitate having undesirable regimes and dictatorships. The situation has changed and Russia is no longer her USSR, while claiming the post in Europe, which historically belongs to him. Hence the difficulties experienced by the idea of a joint defence of the European continent, and the proposals Russia establish a defensive system that encompasses the historical Europe. Crimp it with the elasticity of joint defence system seems a complicated resolution problem. At stake are several little matching trends: 1) United States want to use NATO as an essential element of the joint defence of the West; (2) The European Union would not rely on both United States to the Affairs of his military defense and have European autonomous organisations; (3) Economic, social and political reasons will oblige not to accept that historical Europe still divided by a military frontier that keep Russia outside its essential core. How can disparate elements I articulate? Meetings that will take place in various international forums will give us an idea of what the future holds to the Europeans. Even these coincide in a unanimous position. It is not anecdotal that the President of the State that holds the Presidency of the EU during this semester is a Eurosceptic as Vaklav Klaus. Congenital European weakness in foreign policy and defense, aggravated since the enlargement of 2004, is not a positive factor when it comes to sitting down to negotiate at the same table with Russia and United States. It will have to watch and wait.

Comments are closed.