Friday, November 24, 2006

NATO's Mandate is Changing

Does this make any sense?

The Nato alliance, stretched by operations in Afghanistan, should further expand its role to include counter-terrorism, cyber-security and the security of natural resources, according to a classified document to be endorsed by presidents and prime ministers next week.

The Financial Times has obtained documents outlining the proposed changes to NATO's mandate which its members leaders, including Harper and his Defence minister O'Connor, have been discussing and have already given the green light to.

First of all, don't we have a right to debate these changes in an open fashion since they affect the future of Canada's role in the alliance? And secondly, the glaring observation that NATO is already stretched would seem to indicate to any reasonable person that increasing its responsibilities at this time would be foolish. If NATO is unable to handle the war in Afghanistan, how can it possibly deal with expanded duties?

The document has previously been endorsed by defence ministers but has remained classified until now. Described by diplomats as building on Nato’s strategy goals, last elaborated in 1999, the document says that Nato should be ready to fight more than one big operation at a time, as well as an increasing number of smaller engagements.

It says “this requires forces that are fully deployable, sustainable and interoperable and the means to deploy them”.

Is that why O'Connor pledged to pump so much money into the Canadian military earlier this year? And why would such a document be classified anyway?

The classified document – officially called the “comprehensive political guidance” – says Nato should put a premium on “the ability to deter, disrupt, defend and protect against terrorism, and more particularly to contribute to the protection of the alliance’s populations, territory, critical infrastructure and forces”. Some US officials are keen to open the door to a greater Nato role in helping with “homeland security”, although this remains controversial within the alliance.

Of course the US government is 'keen' about this. We're already cleaning up its mess in Afghanistan while they pull funding and troops from the country. And it seems to me that those domestic duties are already assigned to other agencies, like CSIS, the RCMP and the so-called Department of Public Safety in Canada. Why is this being brought under NATO's umbrella and what exactly is the plan to do so? How will that affect our sovereignty?

The Financial Times also reports that next week's scheduled conference in Latvia has been scaled back to only 2 sessions within 24 hours:

Nato’s difficulties in Afghanistan have forced the alliance to scale down its ambitions for a showpiece summit next week and raised questions about its ability to get to grips with the insurgency in the country.

Some showpiece that Afghanistan war is. Most member countries militaries are either stretched too thin or have restricted their mandates for fighting the insurgency in the region. Canada is 'rerolling' its military and hiring civilian contractors now because it can't handle the job. Not much there when it comes to the Show and Tell session. No wonder they want to wrap it all up quickly and just go back home. It's a disaster which can only leave people wondering why NATO would actually even think of taking on more at this time. I know I'd sure like to know what the heck our government is thinking by endorsing that plan and where they're going to get the manpower and money to implement it.

No comments:

Post a Comment