PDA

View Full Version : Dutchman to head Nato



Ironduke
23 Sep 03,, 04:09
Dutchman to head Nato


Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has been named as the new secretary general of the Nato military alliance.
He replaces the UK's George Robertson, who is standing down in December after four years in the post.

Mr De Hoop Scheffer, 55, of the Dutch Christian Democrat party, has pledged to modernise the alliance.

In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme, he rejected criticism that Nato has become irrelevant.

"The alliance is as relevant and alive and kicking as ever. The only thing is that the international security surroundings and scene and structure have changed drastically and dramatically," he said.

"The enemy is not the traditional enemy any more, but the enemy for instance is international terrorism, the enemy is instability, the enemy is insecurity, that is the reason why NATO is in Afghanistan, why NATO is supporting the Polish division in Iraq. That is the new enemy," he said.

Career diplomat

Mr De Hoop Scheffer saw off a challenge from Canada's candidate, John Manley, who failed to win enough support from European nations and withdrew his candidacy earlier on Monday.

Amsterdam-born Mr De Hoop Scheffer was a senior diplomat before entering parliament in 1986.

After senior positions in the offices of four foreign ministers, he took the post himself in July 2002.

The father-of-two, who once served as a reserve officer in the Dutch Air Force, he is the third Dutchman to serve as Nato's secretary general.

Lord Robertson, who announced his intention to leave the post earlier this year, had said a decision on his replacement was needed quickly.

Nato has been evolving from a Cold War-era defensive bloc into global security organisation, and its forthcoming expansion will include seven former communist states from Eastern Europe.

Transatlantic strains

Fred van Staden, head of the Clingendael Institute for Strategic Studies in The Hague, described Mr De Hoop Scheffer as "an extremely talented professional" who could build bridges between the United States and opponents of the war in Iraq, Germany and France.

"He is convinced of the importance of strong relations between the United States and Europe," said Mr Van Staden.

"He is the perfect figure to iron out creases in the Atlantic alliance."

In a statement, Lord Robertson said: "Jaap has a distinguished record as both diplomat and politician that make him superbly qualified to be secretary general...

"As foreign minister, he impressed all his colleagues with his judgment and grasp of the issues...

"I am delighted that we have found the right man to ensure Nato remains the world's most successful defence alliance."

Mr Robertson is to become deputy chairman of the British-based telecoms group Cable and Wireless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3129628.stm

Officer of Engineers
28 Sep 03,, 11:28
Unwritten rule here.

NATO's military commander is always an American and the General Secretary always a European. Canada is mighty pissed.

Praxus
28 Sep 03,, 13:27
Just wondering but what's the point of NATO anymore?

There is no Russian threat to speak of anymore.

Officer of Engineers
28 Sep 03,, 15:01
NATO is still the most active military organization on earth with 3 major deployments (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan), sea lanes control, and an Immediate Reaction Force (the one that was used in Afghanistan during the 1st stages of OEF) that the Americans would find it impossible to replace, especially its forward deployment.

Wihtout NATO, it would have been impossible for the US to have fought either the Kuwait or the Iraq War. Both VII and V Corps came from EURCOM.

Sparky
28 Sep 03,, 15:25
Um I hate to be a spoiler here but if NATO didn't exit that deesn't mean other alliances wouldn't exist in the vacumm and it doesn't mean the US forces now comprised in NATO wouldn't exist elsewhere. Don't get me wrong. I support NATO. I beleive it to be an important and stabalizing political and military force.I hope it remains so. But if it didn't exist or was to somehow be disassembled, that wouldn't preclude other alliances from being created in the vacumm. It would be hard though to imagine a sturcture as useful as NATO to US interest forming in its wake however. There is something to be said for the sabilizing track record, confidence and inertia that is NATO.

Praxus
28 Sep 03,, 15:32
Wihtout NATO, it would have been impossible for the US to have fought either the Kuwait or the Iraq War. Both VII and V Corps came from EURCOM.

How does NATO have anything to do with bringing equipment and troops from Europe?

All of the aircraft were American, and almost all the equipment was American.

I am not saying there should be nothing like NATO I am just thinking it needs to be reorginized or a new alliance established.


NATO is still the most active military organization on earth with 3 major deployments (Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan), sea lanes control, and an Immediate Reaction Force (the one that was used in Afghanistan during the 1st stages of OEF) that the Americans would find it impossible to replace, especially its forward deployment.

Well it helps when there ARE NO other MAJOR military orginizations!

Officer of Engineers
28 Sep 03,, 23:23
Originally posted by Sparky
Um I hate to be a spoiler here but if NATO didn't exit that deesn't mean other alliances wouldn't exist in the vacumm and it doesn't mean the US forces now comprised in NATO wouldn't exist elsewhere. Don't get me wrong. I support NATO. I beleive it to be an important and stabalizing political and military force.I hope it remains so. But if it didn't exist or was to somehow be disassembled, that wouldn't preclude other alliances from being created in the vacumm. It would be hard though to imagine a sturcture as useful as NATO to US interest forming in its wake however. There is something to be said for the sabilizing track record, confidence and inertia that is NATO.

The orignial intent of NATO was far more sinister. NATO was created to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. The Russian threat, however, exceeded American response and hence a greater reliance on the allies including the resurgence of a powerful BW.

Without NATO, any other alliance would not have tolerated a resurgent Germany and the Americans would be pre-occupied with a mute Germany, much like they had with Japan.

Even with 8th Army in Japan, the US Far Eastern forces are nowhere near in doctrinal development as V and VII Corps. In deed, it would be highly doubtful if 8th Army could have pulled the same tricks V and VII Corps did.


Originally posted by Praxus
How does NATO have anything to do with bringing equipment and troops from Europe?

All of the aircraft were American, and almost all the equipment was American.

Because V and VII Corps' missions are NATO and their homes are NATO. No home. No force. Or at the very least, it would be a very much different force, more of an occupation army instead of one geared to fight the Soviets and hence, the overwhelming onslaught in both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars.


Originally posted by Praxus
I am not saying there should be nothing like NATO I am just thinking it needs to be reorginized or a new alliance established.

The debate is over. The alliance has re-defined itself as a result of 11 Sept. NATO was a very much different animal today than pre-11 Sept. The force structures are re-aligning themselves from a total ground war in Europe to expeditionary forces to take the fight wherever on earth. Like the Americans, NATO ain't going to wait for the enemy to come to them. They'll take the fight to their homes instead.


Originally posted by Praxus
Well it helps when there ARE NO other MAJOR military orginizations!

US-Japan, ANZAC, US-ROK, NORAD, US-Israel, CIS, Russia-Mongolia, Russia-Central Asia, Russia-India, Russia-China, The Shanghai Five, China-Pakistan, China-DPRK.

Praxus
29 Sep 03,, 00:07
Because V and VII Corps' missions are NATO and their homes are NATO. No home. No force. Or at the very least, it would be a very much different force, more of an occupation army instead of one geared to fight the Soviets and hence, the overwhelming onslaught in both the Kuwait and Iraq Wars.

I am talking about dissolving NATO NOW. I am not talking about it never exsisting. If it were up to me NATO would have exsisted till 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. After that there is no point, it is just a waste of tax dollars.


US-Japan, ANZAC, US-ROK, NORAD, US-Israel, CIS, Russia-Mongolia, Russia-Central Asia, Russia-India, Russia-China, The Shanghai Five, China-Pakistan, China-DPRK.

Japan has a pacifist constitution, so that can't really count. Israel is to small to take part and it's to "politicaly incorrect" to do so, it would piss off the Arabs, I don't care, but politicians obviously do. Also DPRK-China aren't exactly the best of buddies now a days. Russia and China aren't close military allies under a unified command, same with Russia-India.

As for the rest, you got me there:D

Officer of Engineers
29 Sep 03,, 01:12
Who's going to take over NATO's current missions?

Atlantic, Mediterranean, Persain Gulf, Afghanistan (both the land and the Indian Ocean ops), Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, EURCOM, etc.

Praxus
29 Sep 03,, 02:11
Atlantic, Mediterranean, Persain Gulf, Afghanistan (both the land and the Indian Ocean ops), Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, EURCOM, etc.

Pull out of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia. There is no need to have troops there as it is not vital to US/European national security. Afghanistan should be controled by the United States.

I don't see how the exsistence of NATO would have any effect on these missions.

Officer of Engineers
29 Sep 03,, 02:33
Originally posted by Praxus
Pull out of Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia. There is no need to have troops there as it is not vital to US/European national security.

Could have fooled me. Actually, it's spheres of influence and to the borders of one's own backyard. Whoever controls the region denies it to the other powers. Specifically, the competition is between Germany (with US support), Russia, and Turkey. Note their proxies (Croatia, Serbia, and the Muslims).



Originally posted by Praxus
Afghanistan should be controled by the United States.

They don't want it. The US has thus refused to participate in the ISAF. However, they don't want the ISAF to leave.


Originally posted by Praxus
I don't see how the exsistence of NATO would have any effect on these missions.

You're shitting me, right? NATO is in command of these missions. What do you mean "any effect" on these missions?

In actuallity, NATO provides a more solid and more permenant force structure without any single nation assuming the costs and the committement of that force. Rotating officers within a NATO HQ is alot easier than rotating HQs.

There's no need for an HQ to re-learn the ropes as what was happenning to the ISAF before NATO took over. The Brits didn't hand their HQ and thus all their knowledge, computers, paperwork over to the Turks who did the same for the Germans who did the same for the Canadians. When NATO took over, that disapperred once and for all even when new nations took over the command.

Also, within Bosnia/Kosovo, you have multi-national sectors all NATO commands. There is uniformity there between the US sector and the Italain sector and the Canadian sector. Without it, you have problems such as what happenned in Somalia with the Indian sector behaving differently than the Americans.

Ray
29 Sep 03,, 17:52
Great chance to get used to the Double Dutch from an authentic source!:lol

Praxus
29 Sep 03,, 20:19
Im sorry, I was wrong. Sorry for pissen you off OOE.

Officer of Engineers
29 Sep 03,, 22:15
I was not pissed off. I would tell you direct if I was.

Praxus
29 Sep 03,, 22:22
Well anyways, I admit I'm wrong. There I said it:D

Officer of Engineers
30 Sep 03,, 04:51
It was a valid question.

There were/are tensions. The Europeans wanted to make Euro Force pre-eminant over NATO. Disagreements about defence sharing. Disagreement over roles. Disagreements over membership. Disagreements over European issues (ie the Balkans).

For a while there, it looked like NATO would become nothing more than a shell with two blocks - US/Canada and Europe with the UK trying to bridge the two.

One of the strongest disagreement is that the Euro Force contains non-NATO members but would use the same forces assigned to NATO (ie NATO assets). Turkey, not a member of the EU, along with Canada, and the US objected.

However, the War on Terror has re-focused the Alliance and that's the glue that's currently holding it together. No matter how big our differences are, they're tiny compared to those who hates us.