Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni.cristiani
Titolo: il futuro della NATO

 A new global power structure  
   Thomas L. Friedman NYT  
-------------------------------------------
 
NEW YORK In this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a
little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I
must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw
were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would
describe it: Sept. 11 was the start of World War III, à la Pearl
Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, à
la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day
(I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of
some kind of new global power structure.
.
At this new historical pivot point, we're still dealing with a
bipolar world, only the divide this time is no longer East versus
West, but the World of Order versus the World of Disorder. But here's
the surprise: The key instrument through which the World of Order
will try to deal with threats from the World of Disorder will still
be NATO. Only in this new, expanded NATO, Russia will gradually
replace France, and the region where the new NATO will direct its
peacekeeping energies will shift from the East to the South. Yes,
NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of
operation will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the
Arab-Israel frontier. 
.
.
No, I haven't lost my marbles. Here's what's going on: Ever since the
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, individual countries _first Britain,
then Turkey, then the Netherlands and Germany_ have taken
responsibility for providing the 5,700-man peacekeeping force in
Kabul. It is a very expensive job for one country and it is very
inefficient to be changing brigades every six months, but that was
how the Bush team wanted it. It didn't want NATO getting in the way
of its combat troops or nation-building. 
.
But in February, President George W. Bush quietly told NATO's chief,
Lord Robertson, that beginning in August, when the current
Dutch-German force is supposed to leave Afghanistan, the United
States would like to see NATO permanently take over peacekeeping
duties there and work alongside U.S. combat troops. If this is
approved by NATO, for the first time the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization will be operating outside Europe, in the heart of the
Muslim world. 
.
.
France is fighting this idea, because it wants to see NATO, the
anchor of America's military presence in Europe, wither away. But
many key NATO members favor the idea, and what's really interesting
is that the Russians have said they would consider sending a platoon
as well, under the NATO-Russia partnership. Even the Chinese have
winked their approval. Both of these big powers feel threatened by
the disorder coming from parts of Central Asia and the Middle East.
If France stands in the way, NATO officials say they will just work
around it. 
.
.
What the United States is doing in Afghanistan is
``internationalizing'' the nation-building process there, because
America found it simply could not pull this off alone. Eventually,
the United States will have to do the same in Iraq. That is what
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain came over to tell Bush this past
week. 
.
The Bush team keeps arguing that this silly alliance it cobbled
together to fight the war in Iraq is multilateral and therefore the
moral equivalent of the United Nations. Nonsense. Other than Britain,
the United States bought this alliance. Almost every government in it
is operating without the support of its people. Fighting this war
without international legitimacy is hard enough, but trying to do
nation-building without it could be even harder. 
.
Yet, the Bush team is right about one thing. Nation-building in Iraq
can't be done by the United Nations. It can't be done by a committee.
So what America will eventually need in Iraq is a credible
peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by
the United States. 
.
That will bring the United States back to NATO, possibly in
partnership with some Arab and Muslim armies. This is not your
grandfather's NATO anymore. That NATO patrolled the German-Soviet
frontier. This one will be patrolling Kabul and Baghdad. 
.
.
And while NATO is changing, it may just go all the way. NATO's chief,
Lord Robertson, is retiring this year [a real loss]. A favorite to
succeed him is the Norwegian defense minister, Kristin Krohn Devold,
a woman. So get ready for this CNN headline: ``The NATO alliance, for
the first time led by a woman and including a Russian platoon, took
over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan today, as a prelude to
taking over peacekeeping in Iraq. France refused to participate.'' 
.
.
Yes, we may be present at the creation of a very new world, and no, I
have not lost my marbles. 
-------------------------------
The changing role of NATO
 by IHT: Thomas L. Friedman:

 week. 
(cut)
This Mr. Friedman is either insolent or ignorant. There is a world of
difference between the cases of Afghanistan and Irak.
The intervention in Afghanistan has been approved of by the U.N. And
the statutes of the NATO demand an agreement between the actions of
the NATO and the decisions of the U.N. - and not the U.S.!! Read the
North Atlantic Treaty text at
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
. There are certain people
who obviously believe that they can abuse the NATO without end (you
might also want to read the thread "NATO needs a new Doctrine" on
can.politics, uk.politics.misc and us.politics - last entry on March
19).
As a matter of  fact, as I read on 
www.nato.int
, there has been
widespread annoyance among NATO officials about the U.S. to first get
the case of Article 5 approved, but then not respecting the
consequences and forming an ad hoc alliance to go into Afghanistan
instead of letting the NATO do its business.
So if NATO gets asked now, after its main business has been done by
non authorized personell, it might be humiliating for the NATO.
Nevertheless, NATO would act completely incoherent, if it would now
refuse to go.
On the other hand, it would be a blatant violation of its statutes if
the NATO would help the U.S. in Irak, since Article 5 has already been
been satisfied with the action in Afghanistan. The NATO would loose
all internal credibility if it let itself be abused for a global Jihad
of the bigoted.
Peter Holm