Global NATO?

[geo]

IMHO, the only way that Pakistan will possibly accept the presence of Indian troops in Afghanistan would be to have the Indian troops in northern Afghanistan well away from the Pakistani border.... freeing up German, French, Dutch, Italian troops?... BUT even tehre, there would be the matter of alleged influencing of ISAF behind Pakistan`s back.... therefore, it ain't going to happen .... but it could be a bargaining chip to force Pakistan to close off their border to Taliban - as has been promissed umpteen times.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This sounds like it may just be hinting at expanding the "partnership for peace" concept to more non-NATO nations and with a broader scope to include more global stability/security issues.

I think that’s the case in some capitals: especially London and Canberra.

See PPCLI Guy’s comments in this thread, dated: 2006-08-27.

My Anglosphere includes America, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore as its charter members with India, certainly, probably Fiji and Malaysia, and possibly Pakistan and South Africa as cadet members.

I believe that any effective Anglosphere must pay attention to socio-political optics and, therefore, it cannot be a white men’s club.  Equally, however, it must be a club with stiff entry requirements and democracy – real democracy – has to be at the top of the list.  

Singapore is a functioning conservative democracy; free votes and the rule of law prevail – to, at least, the same degree as free votes and the rule of law prevail in North America.  It is a conservative democracy because, with a population which is 85% Chinese, it reflects an extremely conservative society.  Liberal democracy is not the only acceptable brand.  India is a real democracy, too – although the constitution has been put aside, in the ‘70s which might be far enough in the past to allow India to qualify as a full member.

Fiji and Malaysia have had more, too recent brushes with undemocratic governments; Pakistan is a military dictatorship and South Africa appears, to me, from afar to be teetering on the brink of undemocratic reform.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if this announcement of India's involvement in Afghanistan might not have been pending for some time and held in abeyance by the perceived need to keep Pakistan "on side".  With Pakistan explicitly going off and making peace deals with Mullah Omar, the tribes and Al Qaeda, as well as still protecting A.Q. Khan maybe there has been a shift in priorities. 

It would be interesting to see the effect of a couple of Indian Divisions on Pakistan's NW Frontier.  Couple that with a nod and a wink to the Indians about clearing out Islamic militants in Kashmir and Musharaf would have a really interesting time of it.

 

[Journeyman]

.... but it could be a bargaining chip to force Pakistan to close off their border to Taliban.

Too funny.

On Sept 5th, the Pakistan government signed a treaty that effectively gives Taliban and al-Qaeda control of the north-west frontier bordering Afghanistan - - sharia law is now in force. (Google "Waziristan Accord") 

Further showing their support for the war on terror  : , they also released several dozen terrorists from prison on the 15th, returning them to the border region, where they are likely rejoining the fight in A'stan.

I doubt if Pakistan will be an actively useful ally any time soon.

 

[Echo9]

An expanded NATO will prove to be its death.  The problem with any alliance is that as it grows in membership, there becomes less of a shared central purpose and fewer shared understandings.  the precise reason for the ineffectiveness of the UN is that it represents the cacophony of the world, where there are no shared understandings.  It cannot do anything other than the status quo for the precise reason that different power blocs do not agree on anything other than status quo (and even then not so much).  This was hugely valuable during the cold war, where stasis prevented the world from being blown up, however, it is not the natural way of things.

the underlying problem with an expanded NATO is one of understanding:
1.  France/ Germany view NATO as the precursor of a pan-european integrated military force, to accompany the political/ economic integration of the EU.
2.  The US sees NATO as being its "extended team".

The two notions are opposed, in that increasingly, the US "extended team" comes from nations that are either at the periphery of NATO (Britain, Poland, Romania), or outside of it completely (Australia).


the idea of a new alliance based on the Anglosphere is an enticing one- you do get the advantage of more of the baseline shared understandings of culture across its nations.  It does not need to be geographically based, which NATO will continue to be for the reasons highlighted above.  It has the potential of integrating the next superpower (India) early on in its development.

Most importantly, it has the benefit of sharing a perception of the threats of the next century- islamofascism and China.

 

[Journeyman]

An expanded NATO will prove to be its death. 

First, some terminology clarification (mostly for the fly shit & pepper crowd, feel free to skim down to the next paragraph  ).
It's generally accepted that an "alliance" is a formal agreement amongst like-thinking nations. A "coalition" on the other hand is an implied military partnership with a common, but limited, scope. A "regional partner" is an even more loose arrangement, with formal or informal agreements very limited in scope/time/span. NATO is an alliance; ABCA (and NZ officially now, but the t-shirt makers are still struggling with a suitable acronym) is a coalition; the article cited above indicates that India may be considered a regional partner for the Afghanistan mission: "Indian troops would be part of a wider engagement the alliance envisages with non-member states."

Now, to concur with Echo9, I don't see NATO expanding any time soon. They're still coming to grips with the last round of former-WP draft choices, and it's become obvious that this new NATO is even more unwieldy than the 16 nations. Whenever doctrinal or procedural issues come up, one hears increasingly, "what's ABCA doing?" Then a quorum will return to Brussels and say, "I think we should do this" (which just happens to coincide with ABCA's direction....France will disagree....the kids will argue some more.....but that's a different thread)

 

[GAP]

I agree with Echo-9..Europe is becoming more and more insular to the point it is impacting on NATO.

The anglosphere alliance is probably going to evolve out of shared conflicts/interests. I would dare say it is already here in everything but formal organization.