NATO debates giving special status to Pacific-rim countries(AUS,JPN,SK,NZ)

SOFIA: A US push to give special NATO partnerships to Australia and other Pacific-rim allies ran into trouble at a top-level meeting due to end Friday after European members voiced scepticism, diplomats said.

The proposal would see Australia, New Zealand and possibly Japan and South Korea extended privileged status with NATO that would reflect their active role in some Alliance missions while stopping short of offering membership.

Foreign ministers from the 26-nation Alliance discussed the issue, among other topics, at a conference in the Bulgarian capital Sofia that began Thursday.

But diplomats attending said several ministers from big European states were balking at the idea of NATO extending its influence into Asia.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking after a first round of talks, tried to allay those fears.

"NATO does not aim to turn itself into a global policeman, but if you look at the threats we are faced with today, they are of a global nature," he said.

"There is a difference between a global alliance and an alliance with global partners," he insisted.

He and other NATO officials also emphasised that the ministers were just discussing possibilities and would not be making formal decisions in Sofia.

Nevertheless, some NATO members made it clear they were against the idea from the beginning.

"We're talking about what? The Pacific, Taiwan? ... That risks upsetting China and Russia," one diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.

"If it's about creating a global club meant to solve all the world's problems, the Europeans are wary," another said.

For the United States, NATO partnerships with Australia, Japan and South Korea would reinforce military links to countries already contributing to its ad hoc "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.

Some overtures have already been made, with New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark and Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer both recently visiting NATO headquarters in Brussels. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso is due to travel there in early May, and high-level contacts have also been made with South Korea.

Significantly, though, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who arrived at the NATO meeting directly from a surprise visit to Baghdad -- made almost no comment about the initiative after hearing other ministers talk in the closed-door session.

She said only that NATO needed "global partners" if it were to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction and called this a "critical and challenging time" for the Alliance.

An Australian diplomat in Europe said Australia was watching with interest the discussions, even though it was not represented, and added: "If there's broad support within NATO, we'd be open to enhancing relations."

Jean-Yves Hine, an expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the partnership idea underlined NATO's transformation from a Cold War body ensuring mutual defence to an organisation taking on a global security role.

"NATO is everywhere," he said, noting its missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan and its disaster relief operations in Pakistan. "It's quite right that other countries, such as Australia, have a say in its defence planning," given they sometimes take part, he said.

The advantage of NATO associated status for Australia and other Pacific Ocean democracies, he said, was that "the bigger the pool of force available, the better it is".

That would be awesome!

Australia has always been a partner nation. They have been very active over the years as well. Few really know all that they do. East Timor for example. Most have no clue that the Aussies are in Iraq, that they had troops in Korea or Vietnam. Japan, S. Korea, New Zealand and Australia are all nations that should be on the list.

Frankly, I trust and would depend on Japan more than France! Few in the US know that Japan also has troops in Iraq. That they are one of the bigger financial supporters of rebuilding Iraq. Fact is, Japan has a military larger and more capable than any European nation. They are the worlds second largest economy, have a higher per capita GDP than most of Europe, are one of the worlds leading contributors to the UN, are extremely reliable when it comes to arms non-proliferation and they do NOT bottom feed like the Russians or French. Of course all know they are a democracy, but compared to many of the European allies, Japan is more stead fast in it’s democratic ways and less corrupt. I think it's past due that Japan, S. Korea, Australia, and New Zealand be offered this opportunity.

But there is a flip side to the coin. In a geopolitical sense, if they are tied into NATO then an attack on S. Korea might not be a US/British/Canadian/Aussie/Japanese issue but an issue where Italy, Spain, Norway, even Germany also help out. The bottom line is that for years the US has been playing policeman. The US tax payer has been subsidiesing the national security of allied nations with whom other nations like the Germans, French or even Norwegians do trade, travel etc. But did the Germans want to have anything to do with the security situation in S. Korea? Hell no. They want to buy their products made in Japan and Korea, they want to export their BMW’s there, but they want absolutely nothing to do with the messy costly security issues. Vacation in Australia? Sure. Sell Tiger helicopters to Australia, Sure. And if the Aussies face a threat, would they be there? No.

If you read between the lines here you see exactly what I’m talking about. These European nations want NATO to serve their security needs. But they don’t want to pay any of the costs in the Pacific rim. Just like they expect us to help them but they want to do as little as possible in the GWOT. Who do you think did the “balking” in the article? The article didn’t say, but within Europe I can already say France, Germany and Belgium will be against it. Why? Because they fear that maybe they too have to carry some of the weight.

We live in a world where it is really “expected” that the US clean up pirates off the East coast of Africa, but nations that have ships with their flag on them, carrying their products for export feel absolutely in their right to do nothing to help. It’s a sad sad situation. But will Germany expect NATO to get involved if a nuclear Iran raised it’s head and threatened central Europe? Absolutely! If the Balkans fell apart would the Germans feel as if NATO should intervene as in the past? Absolutely!

Many in Europe are in the peculiar situation where they can’t be forced to help and where they have a choice. If they do nothing others have no choice but to fix the real pressing issues out there anyway. If Germany does nothing when S. Korea gets attacked, S. Korea will fight, the US, Canada, Australia, and Japan will all help each other out in this war scenario. The Europeans have no obligation to do anything and they like it that way. They are a spoiled child that knows it’s a spoiled child, at least in political circles.

"...modern NZ government behavior is feckless akin to euro-weenies"

It is even worse. Remember New Zealand's nuclear free legislations in the 1980s when it must be noted in the context that the Cold War was still going on? The then PM David Lange implied that the legislation was a declaration of neutrality on the part of New Zealand. Many of the New Zealand Labour Party members were questioning the former West German "Ostpolitik" Chancellor Willy Brandt why West Germany didn't do likewise and withdraw from NATO, when Brandt came to NZ for a Socialist International function. Brandt observed that "You are far from the eipcentre of conflicts so you can afford the luxury of being a pacifist!".

In otehr words, even Brandt thought NZ's policies were unrealistic in much of thw world.

SK is vulnerable to Chinese propaganda with strong anti-Americanism and never reliable. NZ is not worth in the first place for its small force. Japan has motivations to bond it into the Asia bloc, but at the same time fears the militarization of China. Japan has decline its trust on China for strong anti-Japan protests, and if this mood could be maintained, Japan has no other options than to rely on US. Japan has strategic value to Ukraine and Poland as well for its position to be on the opposite side of Ukraine and Poland. Ukraine shares border with Russia on the west of Russia, and Japan is neighbor of Russia on the east of Russia. when both becomes member of NATO, Russia will be surrounded by two neighbors on the west and east, unable to concentrate its military on either side for fears to be attacked from the thin defense of the other side. Yuschenko has visited to Japan months ago, and Yuschenko might had in mind for the strategic value of Japan for its position on the opposite side of Russia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.