Wednesday, June 8, 2011

A Useful Subscription

One of the most useful and informative Google Reader subscriptions FLG has is What's New at Chatham House. Often, FLG is frustrated that he isn't in London and invited to the events, but the feed does provide him with a fantastic running list of new and interesting papers. Case in point, this event, which led to FLG finding this paper -- Global Shift – How the West Should Respond to the Rise of China.

There's some very interesting stuff in there on the economic front. A transatlantic free trade area and an analysis of the renminbi as a challenger to the dollar and the euro are highlighted in two fascinating sidebars.

But then the security stuff is like FLG's worst nightmare. They declare explicitly that Europe doesn't have strategic interest in Asia. Okay, fine. Guess Uncle Sam is on his own then. Oh, but wait, Europe instead will take care of Russia and the Med. Okay, that's something. But then there's a section entitled, wait for it, Global NATO.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
And that comes after the introductory paragraph of the security section that reads:
The transatlantic community, and particularly its core security institution, NATO, was forged during the Cold War as a response to the imminent and proximate threat from the Soviet Union and its allies. With the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago, NATO’s original objectives were realized, without a threat of comparable magnitude emerging to replace it. Declaring a peace dividend,
NATO members substantially reduced their forces, and the United States and Europe concentrated on building a united, free, and peaceful Europe. In both of these periods, the West was extraordinarily successful in achieving its major historical aims, namely the containment and defeat of communism while avoiding war and the expansion of the zone of peace and prosperity across most of the continent. These successes have raised questions about the continued relevance and purpose of the NATO alliance and the transatlantic security community.

Right, and the correct response is not Global NATO, but NATO delenda est.

1 comment:

George Pal said...

Well, in effect, it is already Global NATO, de facto if not de jure.

The UN Charter authorizes forming ‘Regional Arrangements’. NATO, being precisely that, spares the UN having to form anything – it’s already fully formed.

Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1949 said NATO was "designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations," that it was "subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter," and that it "is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations."

During the NATO Balkan adventures in the ‘90s former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told the Washington Times: "NATO's decision to send forces to Bosnia based on a UN Security Council decision is to be applauded."

In Ambushing the Future military theorist James Schneider wrote "the future will be dominated by a single overwhelming presence -- the United Nations." and concluded the inevitable "Even now we can anticipate the transformation of NATO from a regional security arrangement to a future role as the UN's military arm."

Almost seems as though the bastard child is finally being recognized as the one time gleam of the UN’s eye.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.