NATO Reform

[Farnan]

The world is changing and so must NATO, so here are some changes I propose:

1. The Secretary General of NATO will now be dual hatted with the President of the European Council or the head of government of the nation that holds that position.

2. The Supreme Military Commander will remain an American, but the Deputy Commander will be Canadian, Turkish or non-EU European (or other as nations are added).

3. An economic cooperation council will be created which will work to solve economic disagreements between nations and decide on sanctions and embargoes when necessary. Sanctions and embargoes require a 2/3rds majority vote.

4. The Atlantic Council will be renamed the Governing Council, and will require a 2/3rd rather than unanimous agreement to make decisions. However, a nation is not required to contribute troops to any decision it does not agree on.

5. If military conflict is decided upon a council will be created for that conflict made up of all contributers to a conflict. Rules governing its decisions will be made by the members.

6. Finally, membership will be open to non-European/North American members.

[ComnenusTheOne]

How about disbanding it? Isnt that a change too?

[vopohame]

I vote in favour of disbanding it alltogether. I really am no longer comfortable with the alliance and I dont like the idea of me or my sons serving along side several european nations that I can think of.

[ComnenusTheOne]

Besides the fact that there isnt an enemy anymore to fight.

[Viking Prince]

The world is changing and so must NATO, so here are some changes I propose:

1. The Secretary General of NATO will now be dual hatted with the President of the European Council or the head of government of the nation that holds that position.

This is a working fulltime position currently. Are you suggesting that it can be parttime?

2. The Supreme Military Commander will remain an American, but the Deputy Commander will be Canadian, Turkish or non-EU European (or other as nations are added).

Madness. This would destroy the essence of European Defense and require a new organization to be formed that would then look like NATO.

[quote[3. An economic cooperation council will be created which will work to solve economic disagreements between nations and decide on sanctions and embargoes when necessary. Sanctions and embargoes require a 2/3rds majority vote.[/quote]

Why are you wanting to mix defense issues with economic issues? There are other international organizations that already deal quite a bit better with this since international trade needs a global approach to sanctions (hint: UN)

4. The Atlantic Council will be renamed the Governing Council, and will require a 2/3rd rather than unanimous agreement to make decisions. However, a nation is not required to contribute troops to any decision it does not agree on.

5. If military conflict is decided upon a council will be created for that conflict made up of all contributers to a conflict. Rules governing its decisions will be made by the members.

The purpose of NATO operations is to assume an attack on one is an attack on all. These proposals will assume a new purpose of ad hoc cooperation rather than a distinctive opt out as now exists.

6. Finally, membership will be open to non-European/North American members.

Why are you proposing this? Just to break up a very workable organization that you oppose?

The reasons for NATO may indeed change over time, but the time for NATO to not be a North Atlantic based organization is not yet passed. Do you really think larger mean greater security? How much larger can NATO be before it does not need to exist along side the UN?

Even within the current structure, nations are struggling with equipment and personnel compatability issues. Which nations do you propose would be good additional participants that can contribute to defense?

[wilting]

1. The Secretary General of NATO will now be dual hatted with the President of the European Council or the head of government of the nation that holds that position.

No. They are two entirely seperate organisation with different memberships. And we have enough top-heavy unelected bodies, thank you.

3. An economic cooperation council will be created which will work to solve economic disagreements between nations and decide on sanctions and embargoes when necessary. Sanctions and embargoes require a 2/3rds majority vote.

A seperate organisation should be created for this, not tacked onto an existing military alliance which will exclude neutral States from economic co-operation.

[Каие]

Why does an American have to be the supreme commander?

[ComnenusTheOne]

Why does an American have to be the supreme commander?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Treize]

Why does an American have to be the supreme commander?

Why NATO has to exist?
It's the same rubbish as the EU

[Farnan]

Why does an American have to be the supreme commander?

Same reason a European has to be the Secretary-General. Tradition, and the fact the US has the most powerful military of the Alliance. Europe however heads the diplomatic and policy side of the house.

[IrishHitman]

Same reason a European has to be the Secretary-General. Tradition, and the fact the US has the most powerful military of the Alliance. Europe however heads the diplomatic and policy side of the house.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with this.

Let's face it, the Yanks are better at starting wars, but completely useless with political solutions.....

[Каие]

Same reason a European has to be the Secretary-General. Tradition, and the fact the US has the most powerful military of the Alliance. Europe however heads the diplomatic and policy side of the house.

Not more powerful than the rest of Europe put together...and isn't that the point of NATO a military alliance, I.e. all together?

Never liked NATO to be honest.

[Babur]

Not more powerful than the rest of Europe put together...and isn't that the point of NATO a military alliance, I.e. all together?

Never liked NATO to be honest.

So in military matters would you rather answer to the EU then?

[Каие]

Nah, I'm serious

[ComnenusTheOne]

Nah, I'm serious

Tho the answer is obvious.

[Каие]

I need to hear it from them first.

[Pallantides]

It should be France.

[IrishHitman]

Disband it, replace it with a Quadrumvirate Alliance of the United States + Canada, the European Union, Russia + CIS, and a neutral observer group.

The standoff between Russia and the US is only to their mutual detriment, and new threats are looming on the horizon. We don't have time for the childish squabbling when there are economic and social benefits to be had...

[ComnenusTheOne]

Disband it, replace it with a Quadrumvirate Alliance of the United States + Canada, the European Union, Russia + CIS, and a neutral observer group.

The standoff between Russia and the US is only to their mutual detriment, and new threats are looming on the horizon. We don't have time for the childish squabbling when there are economic and social benefits to be had...

And exactly against who this alliance gonna be? And secondly....what social benefits are you talking about?

[IrishHitman]

And exactly against who this alliance gonna be? And secondly....what social benefits are you talking about?

Against whoever threatens it....
This is an alliance for mutual defence, not semi-offensive alliances like NATO....

Social benefits like not seeing the Americans, Europeans, Russians etc as enemies, more mutual cooperation in science, education etc.....