What Issues Should Top the Agenda at the NATO Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministerial?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
October 8, 2010
Soldiers Raising Flags at NATO

NATO holds joint foreign affairs and defense ministerial meetings in Brussels on October 14, 2010. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates will participate in meetings with their NATO counterparts. The meetings will be an opportunity to work with allies on a revitalized NATO and review progress in Afghanistan.

What issues should top the agenda at the NATO foreign affairs and defense ministerial meetings?

Comments

Comments

Leo S.
|
Texas, USA
October 9, 2010

Leo S. in Texas writes:

World Peace
Poverty
Disease
Communication

Matthew K.
|
Indiana, USA
October 9, 2010

Matthew K. in Indiana writes:

Joint Ops and cooperation with Russia in their historical sphere of influence.

counterbalancing China influence in Asia, Middle East, & Africa over resources such as oil

Public awareness of peak oil strategic planning

Gragory Y.
|
South Korea
October 9, 2010

Gragory Y. in South Korea writes:

If a country like Korea send its amy to Afghan or somewhere, a standfirm partnership with NATO could be much better than with only the U.S.!

What do you think of this fundermental shift about collective securities?

Gerald A.
|
United States
October 9, 2010

Gerald A. in the U.S.A. writes:

Why did NATO APOLOGIZE FOR THE CHOPPER RETURNING
FIRE IN PAKI? IT JUST empowered THE INSURGENTS and their propaganda machine.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 9, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@State Dept.

Among other things, it would be nice to see folks deal with a shipping container full of IED's sent from Iran that the Afghan authorioties just intercepted.

And by "deal" with it, I mean in no uncertain terms, diplomaticly and otherwise.

(see previous post on this)

http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/human_rights_abuses_iran#Com...

Now, I'm going to suggest that everyone get together and review this situation and adjust Iran policy accordingly as a matter of national priority not just for America's security interests, but for all parties involved, including Iran.

Because the leadership of Iran seems to be doing everything possible to push this nation and its allies into a war with them. Thing is, the Iranian leadership is convinced they are at war with us, and it's about time folks in my country woke up to this fact along with NATO and the Karzai gov.

Folks focus on Pakistan's long support for the taliban, and opine they've "had a change of mindset", which on good days seems to be a constructive partnership, and on bad days seems to be of questionable value...but that's an ongoing process of Pak gov.'s enlightenment in what solidarity is all about when it comes to standing with us in this struggle against terrorism.

Well, folks say we "lost focus" in Afghanistan when we removed Saddam, and I'm telling folks now that if you don't focus on Iran's terrorist ways, we'll be loosing focus again.

If people don't undserstand by now that those who stand against peace are trying to do what we did to defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 80's, then all the years I put in working with Iranian opposition groups and doing the research, making the connects, cultivating sources, and trying my best to help Iranian activists have a voice in Congress and other branches of government will be completely in vain.

And so will any effort you'all may attempt in winning the war on terrorism and establishing peace and prosperity in its wake.

You now have explosive material that you can forensicly compare with the bombing residue of a Mosque that killed the governor of Kunduz province, as well as the latest bombing of a Sufi shrine in Karachi.
In addition to all those IED's that have been killing American and International troops along with innocent Afghan and Pakistani men, women and children.

I'd like those results made public, regardless of whether "intelligence" aspects would play into the answer or not. Now is not the time to hold back from a public accounting. Go all the way back and do a comparison with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Iraqw that precipitated the ethnic violence. Iran has a lot of blood on its hands.

I'm sorry if I sound just a wee bit impatient and upset with folks in all of this, but I tend to think Sec. Gates (or anyone else) would have a hard time calling Iranian activity in this regard "Moderate" ever again.

I really don't care at this point whether you'all @ State want to see a "diplomatic solution" with Iran, because if you don't solve this problem one way or another and put and end to this activity we arn't going to win this war we are in. Make no doubt about it. All I care about is results...period.

"So then, in the interests of global peace and security, we must not remain in static defense of freedom, but place the war on terrorism in its proper place, not in the streets of those we have liberated, but on the home turf of our enemy.

No offense do I mean to anyone in saying this....wish I knew a better way to articulate what I see as "the bottom line" as it were."

...

"As long as the leading sponsor of terrorism exists as safe haven next door to the fledgling democracies we've helped establish over the last 5 years, no amount of troops, no amount of diplomacy, and no amount of money spent in nation building will change the dynamics of the instability created by those who want, and have been engaged in war with the US over several decades.

That said, I am in full agreement with the President (GWBush) when he said,

"And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda."
(Excerpt from speech-President Discusses Global War on Terror
Capital Hilton Hotel ,Washington, D.C.)

We don't want to give them the war they want nor expect....on their terms. We give them the war they are neither prepared for nor able to fight...on our terms."

(excerpts in quotes from a "Citizen's NIE for the NSC" sent December 06, 2006)

Patrick
|
Maryland, USA
October 9, 2010

Patrick W. in Maryland writes:

.........We all have Issues,HEHE....:)

.....Terrorism and the War too,Save People from Addiction. Also Education And The Environment.:)

Raj
|
India
October 9, 2010

Raj in India writes:

What we need now is smart democracy in Pak and Afghanistan. The leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan will not be able to deliver change, no matter how many millions of dollars in aid. We need professionals to lead them. Probably US needs to put pressure to change their constitution to the one currently existing in US. In US the professionals are secretaries, which manage the health, energy etc for the country as a whole. In Pak and Afghanistan it is politicians who have little knowledge to manage health, energy etc. This causes friction, underdevelopment, misplaced priorities which inturn feed terrorism.

Gerald A.
|
United States
October 9, 2010

Gerald A. in the U.S.A. writes:

Afghan security firms delema/disaster. Can the US aford to dump the Afghan security guard forces and let the Taliban pick them up?

THIS NEEDS TO EXPLORED CAREFULLY. THE LAW OF UNTENDED Consequences HANGS HEAVILY OVER THE HEAD OF THE US ON THIS ISSUE.

ARE THEY GOING TO ADD 26,000 TROOP SURGE TO THE TAIBAN? FIRING ALL THE SECURITY GUARDS? US needs to find a way of enveloping the security guards, dumping them will be a disaster and cause many more American deaths.

Ron
|
New York, USA
October 9, 2010

Ron in New York writes:

Agenda

1- Securing Loose Nukes and Dual-Commodity materials. Ending Opium Control and transport.

2- NATO role definitions and delineations with partners. Review and revamp treaties.

3- NATO role in Economic and Financial Crime.

3-

AKMAL
|
Malaysia
October 9, 2010

Akmal in Malaysia writes:

Management

Raj
|
India
October 9, 2010

Raj in India writes:

I am the person who has given the comments starting with 'What we need now is smart democracy in Pak and Afghanistan'. I am willing to contribute to work on policy, strategy and development to resolve the issues surrounding Pak and Afghanistan. Probably millions can be saved at your end with my value additions. I have been advising Rehman Malik, Interior Minister Pakistan on twitter. He has conveyed that my ideas are practical and noteworthy. I can forward you the screenshots from twitter if required.

Stuart L.
|
Oklahoma, USA
October 9, 2010

Stuart E.L. in Oklahoma writes:

A systemic problem of confusion is growing to a 'boiling point' perhaps, too late. That's for 'officials' to decide. With, many topics to debate understood and, withstanding; I beg, no 'plead' with "US Dept of State" to please: do not take for granted the 'common intellect' of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Nato. No criticisms, no bias, no partisanship, because 'people' do not understand the difference of a 'John Wayne Hollywood' style "Clausewitz War" and, "Terrorist Policing" both, equally honorable and, "JUST." To Mr. John "WAR" = US vs. Them and, 'them' is many, many factions. The 'systemic problem' scares the hell out of me, I see it - clear. The 'virtual protesting' on FB, Twitter, Youtube etc. is moving to reality, to the streets, not long - in front of the Whitehouse. "We" can't afford the 'cost,' again. North Vietnam 'insurgents' in the South / "Charlie" did not leave his border and, mix with our 'melting pot' nor, the EU's. Being, fourteen years old in '75; living the misery. Some information is better than none. And, I volunteered for the regular US Army 'Combat Critical' MOS when; in 1979 it still was very "unpopular" to be a soldier. Thank you, for the 'virtual portal' for input. - Good Luck.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 10, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@Stuart,

Let me redefine "US and Them" in the 21st century as "the Sane vs, the Insane", and as far as costs go...let's send the insane the bill.

Payable immediately.

Speaking of confusion, "Cowboy Diplomacy" is an oft misunderstood notion, generally regarded as an insult when associated with Presidential directive in foreign policy.

It's not a partisan thing...for every President is trying to mend fences and lead the herd to greener pastures.

Now where it concerns "hard power", IE making war and engaging in what I call "regime replacement therapy".

(simply because "regime change" and "behavior change" become one in the definition without much confusion associated with either, I've thought long and hard about a few basic ground rules based on history and definitions that brook no confusion but allow for debate)

1) You don't leave tyrants in power long enough to threaten nuclear war.

2) You don't leave tyrants in power long enough to starve their people, commit ethnic cleansing, terrorism or other crimes against humanity.

3) If the job isn't worth doing right the first time, it sure isn't going to pay to have to go back years later and do regime replacement right.

4) If you are going to help people regain their freedom, don't leave them to sleep in the rubble after.

I'm sure NATO and the US can find the basis for common understanding about ROE where it concerns tyrants and little Hitlers who want to be a problem for everyone.

The same economic mistake dictators make in arming themselves at the threat to, and expense of their people, causes the US and others to make that same economic mistake as "Sophie's choice" in how a government takes care of it's people's security, vs. trying to provide economic sustainability.

By not dealing with conflicts in a permanent manner, the UN and it's member states have set the stage for a very dangerous world for humanity to live in today, and this is everyone's fault for failure to find a working alternative to all out war and unconditional surrender.

The US has had to correct our own mistakes twice in the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This Admin came into office intending to end the war in both theaters of it our troops are doing the job required now because tyrants were left in power in the first place.

The pundits are welcome to put this in their political pipe and smoke it, and come up with a better plan if they like.

But to those who's job it is to serve the people, I should very much like them to address the inescapable logic in all of this.

The whole premis behind that "Citizen's NIE to the NSC" I sent in 2006 before the "surge" was as follows;

"I, speaking only for myself as an individual find the concept of "the long war" wholy unacceptable for one basic fundamental reason, that it will be my kids and their kids who'll have to win it. Asking the NSC to accept this analysis..."in the spirit of mindset that the war on terror is evolving struggle, but not neccesarily pre-determined to be of a generation or more's duration."

Whereas;

"We the people must ask the hard questions and provide perspective to those with the burden of responsibility for the future of mankind, having a vested interest in the matter."

I suppose some will say its "an issue" and laugh about it, but it's their problem too whether they accept it or not.

Thanks for serving the country and keeping the peace,

EJ

Anton
|
Belgium
October 10, 2010

Anton in Belgium writes:

Talk about strategies to protect rights of children, women and man trough implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and act upon these guidelines where-ever they are voilated.

palgye
|
South Korea
October 10, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

i think, defence problem is so minor.

In order to overcome the economic crisis while strengthening the loose unity of Europe to create new jobs for the strengthening of cooperation is likely to be the main agenda is suspect .- sub if there is a food crisis in Eastern Europe, this is also discussed ways to deal that would be a good opportunity to think more.

And, the countries' legal, illegal aliens about the treatment plan (ways to deal with surplus foreign labor in the image of the ruling party effect is thought to be made about the report.)

Thank You.

P.S Sad news from South Korea Daegu Gyeongnam Funds woman carrying members of production that were heading to the temple, was said to have a picnic. Is an accident. However, Hyundai's flagship manufacturing plant in Ulsan is home. so much dangerous.

and Israel and the PLO, the United States think that the only country to intervene.

Margaret S.
|
Massachusetts, USA
October 10, 2010

Margaret S. in Massachusetts writes:

Human trafficking should be one of the top concerns.

Sarah K.
|
Illinois, USA
October 11, 2010

Sarah K. in Illinois writes:

Due to the reality that many of the armed conflicts NATO has participated in the past have involved one ethnic minority asserting statehood and sovereignty, I think that Secretaries Clinton and Gates should spend more time defining the terms under which this is acceptable.

Radionexx.com
|
Florida, USA
October 11, 2010

R. in Florida writes:

Please investigate or deepen investigations about the Iran-Venezuela "commercial" relationship. Too many issues that can endanger U.S. security and other countries of the region are going on. Democracy is lost in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez's regime will take whatever necessary steps to harm United States or sensibly reduce its influence in the area. Please do not underestimate Hugo Chavez. He is dangerous and backed by terrorist groups such as FARC, ETA and Hezbolah.

Sean M.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
October 11, 2010

Sean M. in Washington writes:

"www.disclosureproject.org"

The number 1 issue for all of humanity at this current crossroads is an international address of the FACT of ET/Human treaties already in effect.

Without addressing this reality in global public manner, it will be impossible for educated people in the modern age to take nearly anything UN/NATO does seriously, knowing that all actions taken are in accord with this tightly held secret knowledge.

Address the ET/UFO Disclosure issue, & NATO will once again become a legitimate force for good in the world. Without it, NATO is obsolete & guaranteed less & less influence in our shared global reality & for promoting TRUE peace in the world.

Time for NATO to grow up.

Respectfully,
Sean

Bubba
|
Virginia, USA
October 11, 2010

Bubba in Virginia writes:

Expand cooperation with Russia

Daryl K.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
October 11, 2010

Daryl K. in Washington DC writes:

NATO's Defense and Foreign Ministers should put the alliance's out-of-date nuclear-sharing policy on the agenda. Rather than sidestep the issue, they should agree that the 150-200 forward-deployed U.S. tactical nuclear bombs based in five European NATO countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey-are no longer necessary to sustain Article V common defense obligations.

Originally deployed in the 1950s to counter a possible Soviet land invasion, U.S. military officials acknowledge that the weapons no longer serve any practical military or deterrence function. Yet current NATO policy justifies the continued deployment of the weapons as a symbolic link between alliance members. That's silly and it runs counter to President Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

In February of this year, five NATO members, including three that host tactical nuclear bombs, called on the alliance to review its outdated nuclear sharing arrangements. In April in Tallinn, Estonia, NATO foreign ministers met briefly to begin discussions on the issue. They have not gotten very far.

In April in Tallinn, Estonia, NATO foreign ministers met to discuss the issue. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened the door to change, but provided little helpful guidance. She argued that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance,” while saying that “the broader goal of the alliance must be to reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons.”

Clinton suggested that, in any future reductions, "our aim should be to seek Russian agreement to increase transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe [and] relocate these weapons away from the territory of NATO members.”

Unfortunately, Clinton failed to state the obvious: The original rationale for deploying U.S. tactical nuclear bombs in Europe—to counter a Soviet land invasion—has disintegrated, and the weapons have become an obstacle toward the goal of reducing Russia’s residual tactical nuclear stockpile.

It is time for Washington to lead and for NATO to act.

If the ministers cannot reach agreement on the matter before NATO Strategic Concept is completed in Lisbon in November, they should agree to launch full review of NATO’s nuclear posture and conclude it within 12 months.

Sally
|
California, USA
October 11, 2010

Sally in California writes:

Allow all posts!

Simmone
|
California, USA
October 11, 2010

Simmone in California writes: 

Take National responsibility for all actions of the wars we wage by making sourcing out to militia's illegal, immoral and finally a war crime. If a country does not have the resources to start, maintain and finish a war, alone or with the help of allies then that country may not start a war without being in direct breach of participation in The United Nations.
 To take part in hiring militia's, who's sole participation in any war is profit, should be seen as an action wholly against the pursuit of peace in the eyes of the world and a direct hand in maintaining the reality of 'The War Machine'.
 No country should enlist the services, supply the services, or harbor those entities, individually or as corporate entities, within the borders of their country that are know as 'Militias For Hire' without penalties of expulsion from participation in The United Nations and to encourage severe Embargo's from allies or any country claiming to be civilized.

So many things that make sane people want to throw up happen because of those soley making money to kill.

Alvar B.
|
Venezuela
October 11, 2010

Alvar B. in Venezuela writes:

How can people who live in countries in open conflict exact accountability from their elected officials?
With increased accountability, leaders who -for whatever reasons- stoke the flames of conflict might discover the virtues of increased productivity in their homeland.
One way I have found to increase accountability is through constituent-legislator communication, which requires good postal services. Unfortunately, postal service development aid appears to have taken a back seat to more glamorous forms of Information and Communication Technologies.
NATO leaders might want to look into postal service development as a conflict reducing tool.

Jeffrey L.
|
District Of Columbia, USA
October 12, 2010

Jeffrey L. in Washington, DC writes:

Encouraging our NATO allies to provide adequate security for U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe -- or immediately removing them from sites with poor security.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 12, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Sean M. in DC,

I will accept the fact that Bin Laden is an alien life form ( to what's called "civilized" on planet Earth), if you will accept the fact that we don't have a treaty with him (it).

(chuckle)

---

@ Daryl K. in DC,

This will happen when and if Russia decides it's in their best national interest to dismantle their tactical nuclear arsenal altogether.

---

@ Alvar B. in Venezuela,

The answer to;

"How can people who live in countries in open conflict exact accountability from their elected officials?"

...is when the people of your country themselves engage in "regime replacement therapy" and remove Hugo from office.

IE; Go postal on him...(chuckle)

---

@ Simmone in Calif.,

The solution is in the notion of forming " a well diciplined militia" among those we've helped to liberate themselves from oppression.

"Contracting" is not the same thing and I agree in principal with you on the dangers inherant to US reputation through such stop-gap policy.

---

Wheras it concerns "nation building" , NATO should reflect on the history and meet the pledges it has made.

"http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/index_av.html""http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/legacy_video.html"

---

@ Palgye in ROK,

Thanks for reminding me, I had forgot to mention that in the following from my previous post here that the choice between security and economic sustainability is often one and the same, as in the nature of a symbiotic relationship.

"The same economic mistake dictators make in arming themselves at the threat to, and expense of their people, causes the US and others to make that same economic mistake as "Sophie's choice" in how a government takes care of it's people's security, vs. trying to provide economic sustainability."

Randy
|
Michigan, USA
October 12, 2010

Randy in Michigan writes:

Make global water policy a priority. Specifically, address the water crisis in India where the Ganges is being over-extracted, decreasing agricultural productivity and endangering various species' of animals.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
October 13, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Let's see...to answer the Q of week directly;

...if President Obama himself were to offer a video message to the folks at this meeting while shooting a round of " horse " on the court , and he had on a t-shirt of the like I helped a friend turn out when I was of like mind to get rid of all the nukes,..( which was bright yellow... smily-face with a one atom - cyclops eye and under the smile it said "Mutants for Nukes";

I think he'd get his message across...

Especially if his shots were like asterisks, as he gave an assesment of the global conundrum.

Just thinking out loud...and wonders never cease to be.

Latest Stories

April 23, 2014

Celebrating English Language Day

In 2010 UNESCO created Language Days for each of the UN’s six official languages to celebrate multilingualism and cultural diversity.… more

Pages