United States, "New Republic" magazine Web site on April 15 entitled "Libya may be NATO's death played Lamentations," the article, the following main elements:
Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, people had doubts about NATO's future.Although it is the most successful multi-national coalition, but with the disappearance of their enemy, this partnership has almost ceased to exist.
With the emerging world of new challenges, NATO's role and value is becoming increasingly clear. Now, in the Libyan issue, the differences within NATO to block the process of NATO intervention in Libya, and its future became increasingly uncertain.In fact, with the Libyan crisis deadlocked, one can not help but ask the question that we hear is NATO's dying lament it?
Unable to cope with new challenges
NATO's role in today's world how to play the first challenge facing the former Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration hoped the European countries to support stability in the United States in the Balkans to the United States will focus on the Gulf and Northeast Asia.
Unfortunately, this strategy did not work. Eventually forced the United States involved, the degree of depth is the unwilling. This is mainly because other NATO countries are unable or unwilling to take action on its own. In the military and political fields, regardless of what the U.S. is willing or has the purpose of NATO, the United States will continue to be a small partner.
The second challenge facing NATO in the event of "9 11" incident. NATO invoked the provisions of its charter in the fifth, that is regarded as an attack on one member an attack on all member states. NATO launched a war in Afghanistan so soon.
Different from the Balkan wars, Afghanistan is not NATO has always been concerned about the region, but the war in Afghanistan is not NATO's fight the kind of inherent war. With the U.S. deeply involved in the war in Iraq, NATO forces in Afghanistan even more severe difficulties.
NATO agreed to take over the United Nations in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. However, in addition to the United States and Britain, almost no other NATO countries willing to provide a large number of troops. With the expansion of the Afghan rebel forces and the intensification of these problems have evolved from simple neglect Wei serious danger.
NATO as an organization has been unable to cope with the challenges it faces. With the further deterioration of the situation, grasp the initiative and the United States control over all military operations. Although the outcome of the war in Afghanistan is still unpredictable, but the United States and Europe, many observers pointed out that if NATO failed in there, then it is no longer used at all in today's world.
Questioned the value
Today in Libya, the failure of NATO will be its demise another coffin nail. When the Gaddafi regime, the UN Security Council authorized the use of force, NATO prepared to deal with the challenges of the state seems to respond better than the current challenges in Afghanistan.
For Europe, the location makes the Libyan war becomes more urgent. The mission is expected to military action - using air and sea forces to protect civilians in Libya - more than protracted counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is more adaptation to the European troops armed action.
NATO, the United States and Britain strongly urged to exercise control of the Libyan military action because they believe that this action would have greater international legitimacy, but also may encourage more European countries involved, and thus reduce the United States and Britain the military burden.
However, NATO once again prove unable to meet this challenge. With the commencement of military operations in Libya, the French and British troops were forced to take most of the combat operations. Including Norway, Denmark and a few other countries, including Canada, only participated in air strikes.
Some of them only in the patrol instead of the forces involved in target. Other NATO countries - Germany is the most important - is choose not to participate in war.
Since the end of the war is far from invisible, London and Paris have become more and more disappointed. Paris is also opposed by the NATO took over command. The United States continues to provide reconnaissance, air refueling and other specialized support. France and Britain asked the United States resumed offensive air strikes, but was rejected President Obama.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and British Foreign Secretary William Hague has asked the other NATO countries contribute more. Zhu Peigong open complained that NATO's action "is insufficient." French Defense Minister heat Laer Long cover is greater. He complained that his country and the United Kingdom under the "top priority."
Since the end of the Cold War, this is the third: the acceptance of a major NATO military mission, but they show a lack of unity of purpose to implement the mission and military capabilities. At least in the United States did not dominate the situation, it is the lack of unity of purpose and military capability.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has yet to fully consider the so-called NATO's view of things not value: the cost may have exceeded its contribution to U.S. security. The United States needs to continue to vigorously participate in European security affairs, the idea seems to have become increasingly less noticeable.
It is on whether NATO should continue to debate about the survival time. While NATO as an organization may be to remind people about the Atlantic shared democratic values and to help the interaction between the armed forces of its member countries.
However, its current form, the NATO has proven it can not be in today's world leaders and implement complex, long-lasting military action. Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya, the current war may not be sufficient to NATO from the historical stage, but certainly enough to question the value of this issue on the table.
(U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute of Professor Shi Diyi Metz)
Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, people had doubts about NATO's future.Although it is the most successful multi-national coalition, but with the disappearance of their enemy, this partnership has almost ceased to exist.
With the emerging world of new challenges, NATO's role and value is becoming increasingly clear. Now, in the Libyan issue, the differences within NATO to block the process of NATO intervention in Libya, and its future became increasingly uncertain.In fact, with the Libyan crisis deadlocked, one can not help but ask the question that we hear is NATO's dying lament it?
Unable to cope with new challenges
NATO's role in today's world how to play the first challenge facing the former Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration hoped the European countries to support stability in the United States in the Balkans to the United States will focus on the Gulf and Northeast Asia.
Unfortunately, this strategy did not work. Eventually forced the United States involved, the degree of depth is the unwilling. This is mainly because other NATO countries are unable or unwilling to take action on its own. In the military and political fields, regardless of what the U.S. is willing or has the purpose of NATO, the United States will continue to be a small partner.
The second challenge facing NATO in the event of "9 11" incident. NATO invoked the provisions of its charter in the fifth, that is regarded as an attack on one member an attack on all member states. NATO launched a war in Afghanistan so soon.
Different from the Balkan wars, Afghanistan is not NATO has always been concerned about the region, but the war in Afghanistan is not NATO's fight the kind of inherent war. With the U.S. deeply involved in the war in Iraq, NATO forces in Afghanistan even more severe difficulties.
NATO agreed to take over the United Nations in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. However, in addition to the United States and Britain, almost no other NATO countries willing to provide a large number of troops. With the expansion of the Afghan rebel forces and the intensification of these problems have evolved from simple neglect Wei serious danger.
NATO as an organization has been unable to cope with the challenges it faces. With the further deterioration of the situation, grasp the initiative and the United States control over all military operations. Although the outcome of the war in Afghanistan is still unpredictable, but the United States and Europe, many observers pointed out that if NATO failed in there, then it is no longer used at all in today's world.
Questioned the value
Today in Libya, the failure of NATO will be its demise another coffin nail. When the Gaddafi regime, the UN Security Council authorized the use of force, NATO prepared to deal with the challenges of the state seems to respond better than the current challenges in Afghanistan.
For Europe, the location makes the Libyan war becomes more urgent. The mission is expected to military action - using air and sea forces to protect civilians in Libya - more than protracted counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is more adaptation to the European troops armed action.
NATO, the United States and Britain strongly urged to exercise control of the Libyan military action because they believe that this action would have greater international legitimacy, but also may encourage more European countries involved, and thus reduce the United States and Britain the military burden.
However, NATO once again prove unable to meet this challenge. With the commencement of military operations in Libya, the French and British troops were forced to take most of the combat operations. Including Norway, Denmark and a few other countries, including Canada, only participated in air strikes.
Some of them only in the patrol instead of the forces involved in target. Other NATO countries - Germany is the most important - is choose not to participate in war.
Since the end of the war is far from invisible, London and Paris have become more and more disappointed. Paris is also opposed by the NATO took over command. The United States continues to provide reconnaissance, air refueling and other specialized support. France and Britain asked the United States resumed offensive air strikes, but was rejected President Obama.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and British Foreign Secretary William Hague has asked the other NATO countries contribute more. Zhu Peigong open complained that NATO's action "is insufficient." French Defense Minister heat Laer Long cover is greater. He complained that his country and the United Kingdom under the "top priority."
Since the end of the Cold War, this is the third: the acceptance of a major NATO military mission, but they show a lack of unity of purpose to implement the mission and military capabilities. At least in the United States did not dominate the situation, it is the lack of unity of purpose and military capability.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has yet to fully consider the so-called NATO's view of things not value: the cost may have exceeded its contribution to U.S. security. The United States needs to continue to vigorously participate in European security affairs, the idea seems to have become increasingly less noticeable.
It is on whether NATO should continue to debate about the survival time. While NATO as an organization may be to remind people about the Atlantic shared democratic values and to help the interaction between the armed forces of its member countries.
However, its current form, the NATO has proven it can not be in today's world leaders and implement complex, long-lasting military action. Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya, the current war may not be sufficient to NATO from the historical stage, but certainly enough to question the value of this issue on the table.
(U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute of Professor Shi Diyi Metz)
No comments:
Post a Comment