Talk:NATO/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Structure

Removed the following text from a position immediately under the Structure heading.

The Secretary General and SACEUR both hold "Head of State" status, so as to be able to cut through red tape and contact anyone in the world to hold the alliance together.

If this is true, it needs rewording, sourcing, and relocation to the Military Structure subheading. Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well its not true, so I guess we can simply scrap it. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 07:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Enlargement

Georgia has a IPAP (i... partnership action plan) and wants to get full MAP (membership action plan) this year...

At what point did Turkey figure in to the geographic definition of the "North Atlantic"????? Heck, why not invite Japan, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand?

Ever since North Atlantic meant North America+Europe. WilyD 11:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And when did that happen?

And how did Turkey become a part of Europe (Turkey is neither Christian nor white nor is geographically in Europe except for a tiny piece of territory with former Constantinople on it)?

and what magic force detached Turkey from its Middle Eastern moorings and brought it to the North Atlantic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.78.181 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Istanbul is the largest city in Europe... it is also the largest city in the Middle East. They probably joined NATO in 1952 because they didn't want to be the next state to be annexed to the Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.116.61 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and whiteness never were difining criteria for NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stance on Russia::: I have heard many times that Russia is officially banned from joining NATO, is it just that, as an anti-Russian organisation that is presumed? or is it formally documented in the treaty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.210.72 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Misc.

No one in its right mind can think of Finland joining the NATO, since Russia would launch nuclear war immediately, otherwise its Kola peninsula would become undefendable, which would be the end of Russia, since that massive granite formation hosts the majority of its elite air force, naval and missile troops. It would be like Mexico becoming part of communist China, unthinkable to accept.

Nonetheless one of the major Finnish parties had it central in its programme. No one in its right mind? Launch nuclear war immediately? Such a strategic location to hold for Russia? Yes, it seems to me that such threats make Finland's entry into NATO all the more necessary. But that ofcourse is my personal POV. Aris Katsaris

One interesting question is about colonies: - Are NATO members required by treaty to give military help to France in case of a Guyana natives' liberation fight and participate in exterminating the aboriginal indian population? - Are NATO members required to aid britain to hold the Falkland-Malvinas in war against Argentine? - Are NATO members required by treaty to send troops to help the british army quell a native irishmen revolution meant to unite the Irish Island under a free republic? - If Cuba invaded Puerto Rico to drive off US occupiers and establish an independent native government just to humiliate America, would NATO members need to offer troops to USA to help reconquer the island?

I would not like my country Hungary do such terrible things to benefit the imperialist powers against the natural right of aboriginals to self-government. I hope NATO obligations only cover continental territories. 195.70.32.136 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your questions: the treaty stipulated that:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

(With the accession of Turkey, the whole of the Turkish territory is also considered to apply)

So, yeah, NATO holds no power over attacks in Guyana or in Falkland. It seems not to apply for Puerto Rico either as that one is southern of the Tropic of Cancer. It definitely applies in the United Kingdom.

As for "US occupiers" of Puerto Rico, you do know they can choose independence whenever they want, but the percentages for such are ludicrously small, don't you? The real question is whether they'll accept statehood or continuation of the status quo. Aris Katsaris 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding of wikify tag

Hi,. I just read this article and the wording of the article in some parts is impossible. Hence, i have added the wikify tag. I will wikify it myself later, I just have limited time now so I have put the tag on to remind me. Thanks. David P. A. Hunter 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Hunterd. Wikification involves adding links, bolding the subject, categorization and formatting. Some minor cleanup might be done along the way, like spelling and such. A {{cleanup}} tag would be more appropriate for your purposes. -- Kjkolb 08:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism?

I decided to remove the following paragraphs;

Headline text krc nezinau lopai yra ir as istryniau viska :((((

and

Nu ir karocia niekas nezino kaip ten tie zydai supisti gyvena hahaha

Ill be keeping a close eye on this page but can someone get this translatted

• It's just gibberish, Vandalism, proved by the use of: ":((((", and "hahaha".--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

nato funding during cold war

anyone know the basics for nato funding during the cold war? nato website says funding currently: "the agreed cost sharing formulae which determine each member country's contributions” is called their "'ability to pay' "However the basis for the formulae applied is as much political as it is economic. The formulae applied to the Civil and Military Budgets and to the NATO Security Investment Programme were originally negotiated in the early 1950s. They have subsequently been adapted, largely proportionally, to reflect new membership and differing degrees of participation in the integrated command arrangements. Their relationship to current measurements of relative economic capacity such as GDP or purchasing power parities is consequently imprecise."

sooo its changed from 1949, but how? anyone got a source showing individual member funding during different years? thanks, writing a term paper.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation → NATO – … Rationale: This is a concept known almost entirely by its acronym, so to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), the acronym should be the page name. This is similar to NASA, CERN, SETI etc. The page was always at NATO until recently when someone moved it, and now it can't be unmoved. — SteveRwanda 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - For reasons above. — SteveRwanda 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Ditto ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Idem. Sijo Ripa 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above; this conveniently skirts around the propriety of which spelling of organisation/organization should prevail. Apropos, see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, it took me a very long time to work out what the "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" was. Skinnyweed 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If Google is any indication:

• 56 million hits for "NATO", or 33 times as many as the ...
• 1.69 million for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"
• 0.54 million for "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation"

E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Partnership for Peace

• Malta was member between 1994 and 1996.
• Cyprus' membership is objected by Turkey (because of TRNC problem)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia and Montenegro are something as "candidates" (pending ICTY cooperation).

217.67.19.67 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:NATO expansion.png

Image:NATO expansion.png is slightly inaccurate. The state of Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, two years after Germany became a NATO member state.

Sweden

In NATO#Cooperation with non-member states it lists Sweden as both a socialist and capitalist country during the Cold War. Is this right or an error? - Rudykog 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweden has always been capitalist...I fixed it. Rjensen 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweden has always been neither. Sweden is not capitalistic nor is it socialistic it is "a mix", or a "third way" or "something else". By only useing 2 systems to describe the world the text will always be wrong. The best way to say it is that Sweden had and has both. FishHeadAbcd 09:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User Rjensen stop writing that you have made it "more precise" you have just made things "less precise". Sweden fits in both economic systems or it fits in in non of the systems. But it does NOT just fit into one, and trying to put it into just one is the same as saying that a zebra has just one colour. A zebra is not white and it is not black it is a mix of both but what you are saying is that a zebra has just one colour. And that is why I am changeing it back. The person who wrote the part about Sweden knew this and that is why Sweden is placed in 2 slots and not just one. FishHeadAbcd 15:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is the use of the phrase "socialist economy": - it is definitely not a "command economy" as it contains free market elements. But equally, being a system motivated by socialist ideas, it could be argued to be a "socialist economy". Therefore Sweden illustrates nicely the ambiguity of the phrase "socialist economy". I suggest all such references to "socialist economy" be replaced with a more appropriate (less ambiguous) phrase. 82.32.73.92 (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor GA reassessment

• Is there a need for the duplication of the Map of NATO countries.
• The inline external links should become footnotes.
• Could the lead be expanded to add what is NATO's use and what they did. Lincher 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article V

The article says that, "the provision was invoked for the first time in the treaty's history on 12 September 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks on the United States the day before." However, I believe that Article V was first invoked at the beginning of the Kosovo War, in 1999. Since I only have this from memory (news reports at the time), I'd like someone to verify it first. arj 08:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

peer review request

NATO

This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "NATO Summit 2006 will take place in Latvia" and "Connections to terrorism" appear out of place in the Purpose section. The later should probably be in a criticisms section for neutrality reasons. As I read it, Operation Gladio was intended for clandestine operations if NATO members became occupied. There's a big difference between that and what is stated as "right wing terrorist organisations", so I think the reason for that wording needs to be clarified. Otherwise it reads like leftist propaganda. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gladio was originally set up to counter a soviet invasion but as parliamentary investigations show, the network was extensively used (and since no invasion took place - solely used) to discredit and supress socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Gladio was (and perhaps is still) and integral part of NATO. In deed, it has been discovered (and published, see references) that NATO candidates were required to set up gladio networks before their membership would be accepted. These networks were then put under the control of the NATO leadership. Its an important aspect of NATO's purpose, so I don't think it should be under a critism section - it isn't a critism, its simply a fact. Self-Described Seabhcán 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then most of that section is more appropriate for the history sections. I only see one sentence in there related to purpose, and that is not even confirmed or denied by NATO. Nowhere in there does it actually state the purpose of suppressing socialist democratic movements throughout the member countries. Instead it states the purpose was to increase the power of the U.S.A.

I can somewhat understand the purpose of a Gladio in the light of an anti-communist organization, given the rampant paranoia of the cold war period. But then that section should be specifically about the purpose; not a history. — RJH (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole of NATO's purpose is historical - it is to defend western Europe against the Soviet Union - and NATO has never really redefined itself since the collapse of that enemy. Also, there is no evidence that Gladio was every shut down but if we put it in the history section it implies that we know it was.

The history section can just cover the history of the revelations regarding Gladio, as well as the current EU activities in that regard. It does not need to infer that it was ever shut down. — RJH (talk)

I do think you've made some good points about the section not being streamlined for inclusion under purpose. Perhaps the solution is to keep a brief mention (~1 line) of Gladio in the purpose section, and move the rest to history. Self-Described Seabhcán 08:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me: having the "Purpose" section describe the existence of the Gladio and it's purpose--both as a clandestine organization to operate behind enemy lines and as an anti-communist group that employed terrorist and subversive tactics, up to and including coup attempts. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? How about the rest of the article? Self-Described Seabhcán 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. The only sentence that might need to be tweaked reads, "The official aim was to prevent Communist movements..." Since the program still hasn't been officially confirmed, it would read more neutral if used a word such as "alleged" or "supposed" were included.

Apart from that, the only things that come to mind are: NATO agreements on standardized armaments and shared equipment, and measures taken for multi-national cooperation on the battlefield (such as common communications, languages, radio frequencies, IFF, etc.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Funding

How does NATO get it's funding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.219.164 (talk)

I believe each country has to give a certain percent of their economy increase for the year. Someone tell me if I'm wrong ;-). DebateKid 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

icon of NATO flag

Is there a template which can be used to display an icon of the NATO flag? Thanks! Intangible 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible NATO expansion: Sweden

Why no mention of Sweden here? Its an issue in Sweden too (besides the secret agreements during the Cold War). Possible Swedish membership is also an issue in the Finnish debate. 82.181.150.151 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Added some text. Sijo Ripa 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Croatia and NATO

I have made decision to write about government campaign in Croatia about benefits of entry in NATO. Govenment has published benefits points and I want to put them on wikipedia with answer which are supported with resources. Because user:Sijo Ripa think that this is not for Wikipedia I want to hear your answers. For now this page is possible to find on my user page. Rjecina 7:20, 25 February 2007 (FED)

I want to emphasize that I think that the current draft version is not Wikipedia content as it appears to be POV forking (see: WP:POV, WP:POVFORK) and most likely violates WP:OR as the rebuttal of the government's arguments seems to be original research. The Serbo-Croatian language sources could also endanger WP:V. For the interested reader, Rjecina's version can be found at: User:Rjecina/NATO propaganda. Nevertheless, I need to say that I really appreciate your (Rjecina's) effort that you (he ) wants to discuss this before the creation of the particular subpage occurs. Sijo Ripa 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that I need to exchange part of text about Croatia and NATO. Points from article are from newspaper (owner of newspaper is state) and after that ministry of defence has published this article on web site of ministry. In this ministry are telling everybody that she is support this points and much much before that ministers have been speaking about need start propaganda campaign for change of population thinking. Ministry of defence is having croatian and english version of web site but they have make decision not to translate this story on english language because it is only for local use. Rjecina 23:20, 25 February 2007

I would also like to see some list or summary of the benefits and disadvantages of Nato membership. Perhaps the application of 'capture theory' or other critical analysis of the finer political mechanisms. 121.45.236.19 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why French OTAN??

As this is English Wiki I do not see why the French title OTAN should be included; and if alternative abbreviation are included the Dutch NAVO (Noord Atlantische Verdrags Organisatie) shuuld also be mentioned. Most other countries seem indeed to use NATO, regardless of national language, but Dutch does not; and there may be others. Arnoutf 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You may definitely mention the Dutch version, then. DebateKid 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because NATO has two official languages (British English and French) and thus has two official organizational names (NATO and OTAN). Sijo Ripa 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason. French is an official language of the organisation while Dutch is not. Aaker (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Stance on NATO

As native Ukrainian, I endorse (Though without letter of ruling, of course, as I know that original research is not properly a form of referencing in Wikipedia) the validity and apparent truthiness on about the reasoning for the past decided means on being NATO or turning NATO unity holding the people being Ukrainian. Take meaning, that I make a severe point (I think to communicate, I italicised apparent for emphasis of literal thinking) when describing the truthiness in the statement apparent, by which I truly intend, thinking, it with others has been seemly but is not necessarily, or in actuality, true in literal thinking. The reason for this is because, having stayed with many various nationhoods, I understand that (People often know this, but are less to understand it, thinking in literal meaning.) that there are differences concerning, among things being other, the people-government relationship between various cultures and nations.

However, I turn away. I am beginning to make this post look like an amount of propaganda this may be taken for dishonesty; considering that I am depatriated, I can assure the reader that this is not my deliberate cause of action. I presently am, in singular, trying to give context to my question, which is the target in actual on keying of my post: Can anyone find or have an English in language source concerning the honesty of the Ukrainian government's reasoning, and perhaps having or finding some reliable statistics on why the Ukrainian people feel this way? I would presently present a lesser amount consisting with native documents that suit the needs of this particular dilemma, though with context excepting this. They, being native, are in Ukrainian language and Russian language, as spoken in there. Presently I am possessing none versions in English language, unless Wikipedia is not obligated in negative, as to trusting my competency to translate English language away from what language presently is two Slav languages.

==After reading your post I'm afraid I, for one, would have to say a polite 'no thank you' to your offer of translation (as a direct edit to the article, anyway) of the sources you mentioned. However, I wouldn't be adverse to assisting you on a separate 'sandbox' page, for instance, once you've finished your initial translation in order to help with syntax, grammar, etc., and then presenting it for approval for addition to the article CanadianMist 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As a native Ukrainian, you do not represent all of Ukraine.76.70.116.77 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Should Ireland's reasons for not joining be mentioned? As far as I know, Ireland didn't join as the government of the time didn't want to ally with Great Britain. They did however offer to make a separate alliance with the US. As an alliance with the US would have rendered Ireland non-neutral, it wasn't neutrality but an alliance with Great Britain which stopped Ireland joining NATO. The current stance is more than likely just the maintenance of neutrality however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Everytime (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2007

The Republic of Ireland refused American requests to join NATO unless Northern Ireland was unified with the rest of Ireland.--Johnbull (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And let's face it, Ireland would be pretty useless as an ally anyway. What would it do to an enemy? throw potatoes at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You should stop spouting about your everyone is inferior to your nationality mr. IP, you've made quite a few posts disreguarding other peoples nations for fictional reasons. Bretonnia (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. Cillmore (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Article 29.2 of the Irish Constitution reads 'Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.' While this does not necessarily preclude a military alliance, it does make it unlikely that Ireland would enter an alliance as it would either (at least nominally) violate the Constitution, or put Ireland in a position where it would not be able honor an agreed upon treaty.Cillmore (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC).

I feel it should be pointed out that while Ireland never ratified an alliance to join NATO they have, because the British Army is open to Republican members, practically joined with all the military might at there disposal. Ireland may never have joined but her soldiers certainly did. Jackamo (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying people From the Republic of Ireland are allowed to join the British army or that Republicans from Northern Ireland (Whether or not they have ROI passports) can join? I was under the impression that ROI didn't join for the reasons given above and it has nothing to do with their relationships with any members. The whole thing about NI sounds rubbish to me as NATO has no real say over UK home affairs and the UK was and is very important to NATO and the addition of Ireland wouldn't make up for alienating the UK, though thats my thoughts rather than fact.(86.31.187.246 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

I thought Ireland had a policy of neutrality? It was neutral during WW2 (or "The Emergency"), even if they did have better relations with the Brits than the Germans. Reference to NI in the cold war section of the Irish Neutrality article is not cited, though it sounds like it could be true. The irish government did claim the entire island in its constitution as late as 1998. - JVG (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia Azerbaijan

Armenia and Azerbaijan were previously listed as countries who declared NATO membership as a goal, but now they are not, did something change or was there an error? QZXA2 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Provided a reference in the text about Azerbaijan's and Armenia's positions. They both never declared membership as a goal. Sijo Ripa 10:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaps in "History" section

Several issues

Recently, I wrote the 2004 Istanbul Summit and it's striking that several important parts of recent NATO history aren't added yet on this page: the SFOR mission (which lasted about 9 years), the Iraq troop training, the tensions between NATO and Russia about the non-ratification of the adapted CFE treaty, the roots for the current missile crisis, the reasons why Eastern European states joined NATO (mostly fear of Russia), the fact that NATO now also focusses on for instance drug and human traficking, etc. No mention is also made of NATO support for the African Union's mission in Darfur.Sijo Ripa 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are writing jokes Sijo Ripa ? NATO is fighting drug and human traficking ? In reality they are helping drug and human traficking. You can see that very good from drug situation after fall of Talibans. About fighting human traficking NATO soldiers fight only in bed with victims of human traficking which is very good known from Kosovo and Bosnia.Rjecina 10:25, 22. May 2007 (CET)

Then you are likely aware that NATO personnel are accused of crimes involving prostitution and worse? Yes, the fall of the Taliban helped the popy farmers. What is you real point? Raggz 08:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My points is that NATO do not fight drug and human traficking. You want sources about prostitution ? You are having them:

• [[1]]
• [[2]]

Do you need more. There is no problem for finding sources for that. NATO soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have never go to court because they are having imunity for all crimes. Only home country can put them in prison (not Bosnia or Kosovo). Stop dreaming how good is NATO. Think more about why there have not been referendum for NATO entry in any country which has entered NATO in 21 century (and NATO protect democracy ???). Simple NATO is not popular in Europe. Rjecina 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina, I do not think that NATO is good or bad, but several initiatives have indeed been made to counter illicit trafficking of weapons, drugs and people. If you find reliable material which discredits NATO in some notable way, you may of course start an article of create a controversy/criticism section in this article or the most relevant article. The Guardian is such a source and the problem seems notable. Before you start writing, try to find out whether or not NATO or NATO member states have tried to tackle the problem in some way (e.g. starting an investigation, punishing the perpetrators, etc.) Sijo Ripa 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is ease to say we will fight for democracy, against prostitution or drugs but doing that is problem. Look today Georgia where U.S.A. has helped to create democracy. In time of today Georgian democracy prime minister has been killed and opposition leader has been killed, but this is democracy because U.S.A. say that. It is time that I return to drugs and human traficking. For Kabul and drugs situation is simple. You need only to look U.N. statistics about raise of drugs production from begining of NATO occupation. Let I say this clear I understand NATO commanders which do not want to destroy drugs production because if they do that population will more hate NATO and will more ready go on side of Talibans. Similar to that is prostitution and Balcans. Soldiers need womens (boys will be boys Annan words about this problem) and "normal situation" is when they use prostitution (women or man has choosen that with free will) for they needs. Other things is when they for "needs" use sex slaves or children. You have ask me about starting an investigation, punishing the perpetrators. My answer for that is [[3]]. Who will put them in prison if even Annan support that. Tell me how many sources you need about that ? Rjecina 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1 more source. In last few years this has become must known source about soldiers from NATO countries and sex slaves in Bosnia: [[4]] , [5]. Please do not speak that this is story about U.N. because it is story about NATO soldiers in U.N. peace missionRjecina 15:20, 22 May 2007 (CET)

While poppy production indeed has expanded a lot in Afghanistan, there are still NATO iniatives against drugs smuggling. Both can happen at the same time. That does not mean that I support or oppose NATO. This is just a schizofrenic reality. The sex slave problem seems indeed important.Sijo Ripa 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NATO & the EU

I came to this page to learn abot NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.) Raggz 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rjecina

Can we agree on something like this ?

• Afganistan:

In last years of Taliban regime there has been drop in production of drugs. After Taliban fall there has been short break-up of central goverment in which there have been raise in drug production. Now there is ulmost every year 30 - 50 % raise of production which is creating problems world wide. If NATO forces are really trying or not stop this production is very hard to say because of 2 problems. In words NATO in Afganistan is fighting against drugs but population of this country is working in drugs production for last 20 years and it is very hard to make them stop. Simple this has become fact of living. In situation where NATO soldiers are destroying drugs fields local population is becoming hostile to NATO and start more to support Talibans. It is ulmost not possibile for NATO to make war against Taliban and drugs so we have today this situation.

• Balcans

For that (sex slaves,pedophilia) I have given you enough source so there no need for me to say anything. Last problem about NATO and Balcans is Leukemia of soldiers which has been in territory where US has used "low radiation bullets". I will give you 1 source for that [6]. There is many more on internet if you put in google words Leukemia Italian soldiers Kosovo. All low radiation bullets (bombs) which has not been used in war operation has been droped to Croatian sea before planes has returned to Aviano. This is 1 of reasons why we do not like NATO !

• NATO-Russia agreement

About this we must agree that must important is timeline (words and statements are not important). Timeline is going like this: November 1999 NATO and Russia has signed adapted version of the treaty from time of SSSR. November 1999 Russia and Georgia has written deal about Russian soldiers which are in Georgia. November 1999 Russia and Moldova has written deal that at Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 this problem will be solved. 2000 Russia has ratified agreement. 2001 Until Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 not 1 NATO state has ratified agreement so he is de facto dead. Guilty for this is NATO which has not ratified agreement not Russia. 2007 Russian president Putin is declaring that this agreement is dead because NATO has not ratified and Russia can raise number of soldiers 2007 NATO countries demand of Russia to not raise number of soldiers and to take Russian soldiers home from Moldova and Georgia before they will ratified this agreement. This demand is against agreement of 1999 so again NATO is problem !

Rjecina 9:15, 23 May 2007 (CET)

Summary: List of gaps

Please add below the significant gaps that exist in this article:

• Missions: the SFOR mission, Iraqi troop training, the initiatives against illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons and people, logical support for the African Union's mission in Darfur.
• allegations of pedophilia perpetrated by NATO soldiers in the Balkans.
• NATO soldiers that suffer leukemia after missions in Balkans; controversy whether or not this is caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons.
• NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.)
• NATO-Russia tensions: past and current NATO enlargement tensions, linkage between the ratification of the adapted CFE treaty and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Moldova and Georgia, the roots of the missile defence controversy. Sijo Ripa 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

supreme commanders?

Just wondering, why is it that every supreme commander so far seems to be from the U.S army fo Air Force? do they have a much larger comitment or somthing? or am i massivly confuesed... --Climax Void 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an agreement made when NATO was created. The US didn't want a non-US supreme commander, because the supreme commander (= military function) commands all NATO troops that are in the NATO hierarchy/structure (= all NATO members except France). This would mean for instance that a German/Belgian/Norwegian/... commander could command all US troops in case of war. As the US clearly had and have much more military power, and the involvement of the USA in Europe was a much wanted security guarantee, it wasn't really an issue. Also, in return to the agreement that the US will always provide the supreme commander, Europe will always provide the NATO secretary general (=administrative and political function). Sijo Ripa 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems a bit over the top, shouldnt it realy be selected from the country with the most seasoned Generals. As it gives the U.S a tramendas advantage if the United States can control the bulk of the militery forces, and i wouldnt feel to happy not haveing a choice about who controled my countrys fighting forces abroad on NATO duty --Climax Void 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe also got - besides the NATO secretary general - the deputy supreme commander. In reality the supreme commander seldom assumes direct command. Also note that the military is subject to joint political decisions - every NATO member has a veto right. Sijo Ripa 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoting liberty?

The last sentance of the second para of the introduction states that NATO's member states agree to ..."promote liberty around the world". Is this really the case - I thought that NATO was a defensive alliance and member countries were free to opt out out other activites conducted by NATO if they didn't agree with the majority decision to approve these activities. --Nick Dowling 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

you say certain things which ppl like to hear, it doesn't mean you will ACTUALLY DO IT! :) Akinkhoo 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Swedish poll

The article currently says "A 2006 poll showed that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% are against, 22% are in favor, ±5% error margin)." I think it goes without saying that 46% is not, in fact, a "majority". — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you define majority. The remaining group are undecided, and if this were a poll, those against would definitely be in the majority if counted as a plurality (which it seems is the common definition of majority outside the US), as an undecided vote is essentially a non-vote (and not in the majority either). Not sure where the ±5% error margin comes from, though. I can't seem to find it in the referenced citation. Maybe the editor extrapolated it from the sample size of 3000 people, but that would be OR. It would be better to change it to indicate how many were polled, unless the source of the ±5% error margin statement can be found. Oh, and it seems the poll was actually conducted in 2005. --Pekaje 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is the remaining part of that sample? Is it undecided? Polls aren't very useful when you have 32% of the sample unreported. JRWalko 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The source sets the remainder as undecided. This should probably also be mentioned in the article, so it is explicitly stated. I propose changing the sentence to "A 2005 poll indicates that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% against, 32% undecided, 22% for).". People interested in evaluating the uncertainty can look at the sample size in the cited reference. I think it's still safe to say that the majority are against, since undecided votes cannot be "for" by default. Does anyone object to this change? --Pekaje 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Undecideds can't be "against" by default either. Undecideds are exactly that: undecided. People who currently don't support either side of the debate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you count it. In case of a referendum, the undecided would either vote blank, choose a side, or simply not vote. Neither choice is likely to move the result significantly. It is a completely unreasonable statistical assumption that over 90% of the undecided votes would go to the support side of the poll, when the 2/3 of the population that have made up their minds are more than 2:1 against. --Pekaje 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR to assume anything. Just rephrase it. Something like: "A 2005 poll indicated that more people were opposed to NATO membership than there were supporters (46% against, 22% for). Also note that the source does not say that 32% are undecided. People could possibly have also answered "I don't know what this question is about" (which is not the same as "No opinion" or "Neutral"), overlooked the question, made an invalid answer (e.g. colored more than one answer, have written a comment, etc.). So, it would be equally OR to say that these 32% are "undecided". Sijo Ripa 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the source specifically states that the remainder are undecided. Whether it be true or not is immaterial, when what we can verify with a citation specifically states this. So from that perspective, you're the one making an assumption. That being said, I have no particular objection to the formulation as it stands now. --Pekaje 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have overlooked it. Thank you for pointing that out. Sijo Ripa 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :)

These things happen :-). But as I said, it's fine the way it is. No potential for confusion because of different language usage, and the point is still clear. --Pekaje 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Z is NOT dead

They changed the s to a z! I never thought that we would make this edit![7] Reginmund 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods, what a mess. If you work your way through the shortcuts menu on the left of that page, you find they spell some of their pages with a Z, some with an S, and some just abbreviated... -- Arwel (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably by different editors (how unorganis/zed). I guess it would be a good idea to stick with the big flashy spelling at the top of the page. Reginmund 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I shouldn't have made that edit. According to the "What is NATO" tab on the left (which looks more professionally designed), they use the s spelling. I'm still kicking myself as to whether or not I should revert my own edit. I'm confused. Reginmund 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ about the -s- no longer seems to exist on the web page. That they removed said question may be a telling point, and it may just be a matter of time before the rest of the site is updated. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, a spelling win for the USA....lol, I take 'em where I can get 'em, ;) Travis Cleveland (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

npov

Xelas211 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)i am not sure if this npov. there is no it is mostly membership applying topics

Separate NATO enlargement article?

As the membership section continues to expand, I would like to make a separate article about NATO enlargement, similar to the Enlargement of the EU, but less OR than that page. Sijo Ripa 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

NATO Officer/Enlisted rank pages

• Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Enlisted
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Air Forces Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Air Forces Enlisted
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Officers
• Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Enlisted

Something struck me as I was reading through these - the titles are surely incorrect? Armies, Air Forces, and Navies are surely being used possessively, and as such need a terminal apostrophe. (eg. Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies' Officers instead of Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers). I take it that there is no reason that that the apostrophe is omitted except through error?

Xdamr^talk 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

I have found a few news reports:

[8]

[9]

[10]

It looks to me like Azerbaijan wants into NATO! Read them, it's all there. And I also found these: [11] [12]

I am not saying that it is official, but it is at least worth mentioning, I don't think they would conform to NATO standards for no reason. This needs to be further looked into and be factored into the article somehow. Contralya 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation?

[13] [14] [15] [16]

I am sure there are more sources out there that also confirm. I think the article should be changed. Contralya (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Blockade

I find it quite incredible how the history of NATO can be told without ever mentioning the Berlin Blockade. Is this a case of collective amnesia? The more I dig around Wikipedia, the more I'm surprised/disappointed by the absence of consistent quality. -- Vyyjpkmi 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

cause it has nothing to do with NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Where is criticism? 168.103.80.6 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. If there are riots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ab7Dksqfnw) over NATO, there has to be criticism. This is just a video of a band playing during an Anti-NATO assembly. TheSun (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism should be integrated into the thread of the article - for example, I stuck the Icelandic anti-NATO riot/demonstration in the foundations/signing section. Buckshot06(prof) 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Current positions

I am starting a current positions of nato heading - please do not bite as first it will be under populated/not a rounded section. Chendy (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Military v Ceremonial

NATO is a military alliance, not a ceremonial one. I reverted an edit that changed it to "ceremonial", but would welcome feedback if anyone were to disagree. --Mukk 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag vs. Logo

We have two possible images- we have the flag of NATO, as seen here, and we have a logo that NATO uses on its website, here. The question is which sould be used in the infobox. I personally believe that the flag is a better image, as the consensus seems to be on articles on organisations like this that we use the flag, rather than the logo that they put on their letter heads. Comments/opinions? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the logo as it appears on NATO website and logo file is high quality .svg file while flag is bad .jpg. --Avala (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be converted, or the file replaced. I uploaded that particular jpg as it was the smallest one I found after a quick Googling. Please be aware that the file size should be minimal, and please do not use these images on talk pages, as they are both fair use. The issue here is not about image quality, but about which image the article should use. I will search for a better version of the flag now. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the flag is used on the NATO website- see here. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Used in context, it explains that the flag is the official NATO logo- see article. There is also a higher quality image, in jpg format. J Milburn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does image size need to be minimal? If it is too large then it will be dynamically resized by the wikimedia software when to the appropriate thumbnail size. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If NATO primarily existed as an alliance against Communism..

..why is Russia not in talks to join it? I'm looking for a reference in the article that would answer that simple question. This is not a forum but this is information that is vital on the subject. If the whole existence of NATO is not anymore part of a cold war, then that should be established in the article. --Leladax (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As the article explains, with the end of cold war, NATO was expanded to include Eastern European countries. It remains what it has always been, a military alliance of countries that agrees to military defense, but Russian doesn't wish to be a part of that since they have their own alliances and nor do most NATO members want Russia to be a part of it since they consider Russia one of their potential enemies. The fact that there is no longer the threat of the Soviet Union doesn't change the opinions of the leaders of the countries involved that it is an advantage to them to be part of an alliance for defense. They appear to perceive a number of threats like Russia and China, and the threat of terrorism on their soil. Most of this is in the article. Ultimately, as with all alliances, it is between a group of people who have at least one similar goal and are part of that alliance to further that goal Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

This article is regularly being vandalized, and should be locked up to prevent that. DWolf2k2 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it receives much vandalism. Once or twice per day is not, IMO, enough to warrant page protection. However, if you want to request protection, this isn't the place - please go to WP:RPP. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know where or how to request protection, so thanks for the headsup.DWolf2k2 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Albania and Croatia

At the Nato summit in Bucharest those two countries were invited to start accession talks, but political procedures will take some time. A&C will join at the earliest in January 2009. Gugganij (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania and Croati are invited OFFICIALLY

[17] Kosova2008 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NATO or Nato?

I can't see this mentioned, so I'll ask. Why, in the last few years, have news organisations started using Nato instead of NATO? If you look at the bottom of the article page you'll see the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph using Nato. NATO itself uses all capitals (see http://www.nato.int), so what's happening? Poor quality of sub-editors?--ML5 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"14 Major Allies"

In the infobox, NATO apparently has "14 Major Allies", yet this point is never developed within the article. Who are these allies? What makes them "major"? 68.187.82.117 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO

As per user:Sijo Ripa above and in line with cutting down on non-core things that are not actually part of NATO, I propose to split the 'dialogue about new members' page into an Enlargement of NATO page with a short summary here. Comments appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but would it be worth discussing all enlargements of NATO since its formation in that article rather than just the current enlargement process? --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; it's named to allow that to happen. Cold War, 1999, and the last big bang... If no further comments are received, I intend to split away the article on 23 April. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments by 0000 GMT 22 April, I will go ahead and split away the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

De facto NATO members [?]

I was wondering if mention should be made of countries that are not members of NATO per se, but whose defense is the responsibility of NATO members. (eg, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City) In some ways, this is not all that different from the status of Iceland --the only de jure member with no standing Army.

Also, I was wondering if the article should mention whether this de facto NATO membership would extend to every EU member, should the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified; and if so, to what degree.

Please let me know if any of this is relevant to the topic. Pine (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Pine. However it goes beyond the Vatican City.. just north of me is New Caledonia, and there's things like Ascension Island etc. It's a complicated topic, and I've been working hard over the past few months to concentrate this article on NATO's core business, military and political, since 1948, remove much of the extraneous material. Also, much of it would involved a lot of speculation, which would be difficult to source and be highly controversial. I don't want to see the article bloat, nor get greatly unstable, so at the present I'd rather leave such concerns out. However, if you like, you could fashion a couple of draft sentences here on the talk page, and we can hammer at them until they're not going to be fodder for the membership POV-ers who change this page all the time. Buckshot06(prof) 00:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we look secret agreements communist Yugoslavia has been NATO member--Rjecina (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to know, but we need WP:RS very reliable sources for that. Are you aware of any? Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is problem with sources I have not added this to article. In the end I am interested if this english language sources are OK for that claim [18] [19]. For finding data of second source it is best to write in find year 1951 (it will be page 43 or 45)--Rjecina (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Rjecina for your input. Do you mean only the Balkan Pact (1953) or are there additional agreements as well? Buckshot06(prof) 23:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You are having Yugoslavia-NATO agreement on military aid from 1951 (second source) but finding sources for all agreements is tricky. In ex Yugoslavia it has become public knowledge that this communist state has been allied with NATO (1 of agreements has been about number of Yugoslav soldiers in Slovenia for protection (delaying USSR forces) of Italy) but finding english language internet sources is real problem.--Rjecina (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be in English, not necessarily, but we need to get the authenticity checked by two or better three wikipedians with the language skills necessary, and the source probably needs to be real solid - declassified government documents or suchlike. I assume we're talking Serbo-Croat here? CAn you point me to the Serbo-Croat doco links? Buckshot06(prof) 11:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The scope of NATO is an important topic - it's worth stressing that as the Falkland Islands were outside the NATO zone (which reaches to the tropics) the British couldn't evoke the treaty in 1982. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you've no doubt seen, it's in about the third line from the top. Buckshot06(prof) 11:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, so it is. I'm wiping the egg off my dumb face ;) Nick Dowling (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This internet link (it is forum but there is good information) on serbian language is speaking about material help recieved by Yugoslavia from NATO members in period 1951-57. I will make little translation (my english is not very good but...)

• On 14 November 1951 Yugoslav president Tito has signed with USA ambassador in Belgrade George Alen agreement about military aid. Part of agreement is that Yugoslavia has become member of Mutual Defence Aid Programme (??). Agreement has been signed for period of 28 years.
• During period of this agreement Yugoslavia has recieved:599 M4A3 Sherman, 319 M-47 Patton, 715 M7 or M-18 or M-36, 565 M3A1 and M8, 125+25 F-47D, 25 + 167 T33A and F-84G, 22 RT33A, 43 F-86,20 C-47. About smaller items (guns and similar) I will not write ...
• During period of this agreement USA "advisors" has spoken about where Yugoslav army need to be and similar stuff.
• On 15 July 1957 Yugoslavia has withdrawn from this agreement.

Information for this forum is used from :"Isporuke naoružanja u okviru zapadne vojne pomoći od 1951 do 1957 u Jugoslaviji-Faktor modernizacije armije / Vojno-istorijski Glasnik 1-2/2001 "--Rjecina (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On 22 February 1951 Tito has given promise to Truman that Yugoslavia will enter in war on NATO side if Soviet Union attacks Greece, Western Germany or Italy (attacks through Austria). source of this statement is Jasper Ridley . Here is only comment from Croatian newspaper about Croatia and NATO which is speaking about that [event] --Rjecina (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts Rjecina. However, if we're to get further along on this, we'd need the original official government treaty documents - that's what the Woodrow Wilson Center#Cold War International History Project does, they publish the original agreements etc. Are the Belgrade official archives open? 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking it will be very good to look for source of Jasper Ridley statement in his book Tito. About Belgrade archive I will ask my Serbian friend to enter this discussion--Rjecina (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the whole document. A similar was signed with the UK, I believe. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pax Equilibrium. That's the Yugoslavia-US and Yugoslavia-UK agreements. Is it possible to get copies of agreements, if any, with Italy and/or NATO over defence cooperation in the case of a Soviet attack? If those agreements exist, they would be more directly relevant to this article. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia

Why is one blank and the other red? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article? Buckshot06(prof) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The map. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a note immediately under the map - Kosovo's intent or not to join NATO is unclear, and Serbia does not wish to. Buckshot06(prof) 03:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet Kosovo has declared for "Euro-Atlantic Integrations" in its declaration of independence, while in the Republic of Serbia the 2005 resolution on NATO membership is still in act, while the leading political party's program includes NATO membership? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to come to my talk page to ask me what to do. If you've got precise information that state governments have explicitly said that they want to do one thing or the other, gather your sources & citations, talk to the person who made the map, get it updated and reinsert it - that what WP:BOLD is for. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion in now months old, but I just saw it and as the maker of the map in question I wanted to respond. The line between "NATO membership not a goal" (red) and "Undeclared intent" (a slight tan color) is a fuzzy one. It is easy to say that for a country not currently in the process of joining then "membership is not a goal." Arguably Serbia has taken more steps toward NATO membership than any of the countries marked as undeclared. Yet marking these all as red left out subtly and prospects in NATO's relationship with Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Kosovo. None of these four are by definition neutral, like Ireland/Switzerland/Austria, and while none of these red and tan countries have begun Intensified Dialogue, Serbia, like have Finland and Sweden, has (so far) rejected the offer. In all, the map was just a summary of information on the Enlargement of NATO page, so having it on this page might not be a great idea as it takes the map out of context and away from further explanation.--Patrick «» 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Membership / Original Members

This article does not include anywhere a concise listing of the orginal founding member countries of NATO in 1949. Actually, it is essential for understanding the deep history and nature of any organization to know at a glance what its original members were, and which ones joined soon therafter.
For example, to understand the United States, it is necessary to know what its original members were: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Rhode Island (the last of the 13 to join). Without knowing about this, one does not really understand much about the United States and its history at all.98.67.175.127 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map includes France, which is not a NATO member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.25.21 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

France has been a NATO member since the Treaty was signed in 1949. It did withdraw from the NATO military command structure in the 1960s, but that was not a withdrawal from the organisation. As you will see from Google News if you check, discussions are now underway to return France to the military command structure as well; they may assume command of Allied Command Transformation and Joint Command Lisbon. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 12:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

France returned to NATO military command structure in April 2009. Its nuclear force was left separate. The first paragraph should mention this as of now it only mentions the 1966 withdraw. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

The map showing EU and NATO membership incorrectly indicates that Switzerland is an EU member, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.81.210 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of NATO countries needs updated to reflect Albania and Croatia's membership. SpudHawg948 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They haven't joined yet, though. Buckshot06(prof) 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Map Image

I know the map of Europe and North America were mashed together to make the map image look better (without a giant ocean between)... by why on Earth does Alaska appear to be as large as 50% of the continental USA?? Alaska may be our biggest state here in the USA, but it is not that huge! Who the heck made this map??

Probably a Mercator projection; distorts the size of land areas near the Poles. Buckshot06(prof) 05:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wouldn’t an orthographic map projection of the member-countries be better? Here’s a roughly-made example I’ve made:

Any suggestions and colaboration on the issue would be welcome.--MaGioZal (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Just Albania

The article states that " the former Warsaw Pact states - except Albania - joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004", are we forgeting the de facto leader of the Warsaw Pact, Russia? While Latvia and Estonia are NATO members (and Georgia and Ukraine will likely become members); Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other fmr Soviet Republics are not currently members of NATO. LCpl (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He's got a good point there! Dharma6662000 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo on maps

Two maps within the article disagree on whether there is an independent state of Kosovo, or there is no. Also please consider the South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the same legal state as Kosovo (i.e. recognized by part of UN members). AFAIK, part of NATO members recognize K. as independent, part does not, and none of them recognizes A. and S.O. as independent. Here are the maps in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/NATO_expansion.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Location_NATO.svg .FeelSunny (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the situation in South Ossentia and Abkhazia should be reflected. Wiki should be about conveying information - not as a forum for political and legal arguments. There can be an honest debate on how to label these realities but the information should be presented. The move of Georgia into the NATO structure under whatever term of art that relationship is identified with makes the fact that Russia and Russian backed indiginous forces control these territories very relevant. For the same reason, Kosovo and Transnistria should be shown too. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

NATO logo

It would be really nice if we could have a picture of that statue of the NATO logo, the one with iron beams sticking out from it. It's a really impressive piece of industrial art, shame not to have any pictures of it here. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Deputy Secretary General

This needs to be updated. Alessandro Minuto Rizzo has been replaced in 2007 by Claudio Bisogniero, who helds this post up to date. (Sebecq (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Confirmed: NATO biography of Bisogniero. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated, will add the other previous deputies to the list as well although will have to dig for nationality. Seems odd that theres been 3 Italians as deputy for over 14 years, anyone know why? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for editing

{{editsemiprotected}} Please, since the appropriate page has been created in Wikipedia, I would kindly ask to redirect the links (both of tehm) of the:

paragraph 7 Organizations and Agencies Third to last bullet - the Research and Technology Agency (RTA),[57] reporting to the NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO);

to the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Research_and_Technology_Organisation

Also, as according to the offical definition, I would suggest to change the spelling (in teh above mentioned lines and in the relevant reference at number 57) so to reduce ambiguity.

Thank you. ABwiki 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. I've also added a redirect to that article at NATO Research and Technology Organization so as to assist people who search with the other spelling of organisation. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fizzspethwerk. I've added the citation. It's not often that we get helpful suggestions like that, so thankyou. In future, it might be an idea to add a note to the bottom of the talk page - this is sort-of an archive this far up. Just start a new section. Kind regards and thanks again. Buckshot06(prof) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

France re-entry into military command

France has re-entered NATO's military command, so everything relating to it's withdrawal needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.45.67 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Firstly, the official announcement is not yet been made, and second, all the material covering 1966 etc needs to stay; we just add some data saying that in 2009 France reentered and it seems that French officers will take command of Allied Command Transformation and Joint Command Lisbon. But we have to wait for the final formal announcement. - Buckshot06

Sarkozy's proposal must be debated by the French Parliament first, where it is expected pass next week. Regardless, the history will need to be revised.--Patrick «» 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The OECD Model

The same way as the OECD was first established between Europe and America and later extended to Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Mexico (Chile, Russia and Israel are candidates) it is expected for NATO to do the same including Australia, Japan, South Korea and probably Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.150.22 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is being said here.

Australia & New Zealand are officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country (CC) structure. Australia and NZ is also "linked" to NATO by virtue of the ANZUS and the FPDA treaties and US MNNA status. The NZ withdraw from ANZUS over nuclear weapons on US ships did not severe the Australian-NZ commitment. The USA has recently made statements that the schism with NZ is over. NZ special forces are in Afghanistan. This reality for example is recognized in France's Strategic White Paper completed in 2008 - http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/134828/1175142/version/1/file/LivreBlancGB.pdf

Japan is a sui generis situation. Its Constitution precludes any military alliance other than the USA-Japan mutual defense treaty (MDT). But it is officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country structure. Like Australia it too is linked to NATO by virtue of the Japan-USA MDT. Japan sent naval forces to the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghan war effort, which pushed very much at the edge of its constitutional limits.

Mexico is not part of any western alliance. It withdrew from the Rio Treaty due to the USA support of the UK in the Falkland War. The UK could have enacted Article 5 but chose not to allow the USA to avoid direct war with its ally and fellow Americans - Argentina. The USA does equip and train the Mexican military but Mexico is unlikely to pursue tighter bonds unless Communists in El Savador, Venezuela and Nicaragua arm up, deploy foreign forces, or arm large insurgencies into Southern Mexico like they have in Peru and Columbia.

Chile is linked to NATO by virtue of its MNNA status with the USA, its active participation in RIMPAC and its deployment of forces under NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo. Chile is specifically listed on NATO's website as a contact country (aka Global partner). Its relationship to NATO is close to that of Japan, Australia, NZ and Korea. If the Rio Treaty completely breaks down over a Bolivian or Honduran civil war, war between Venezuela and the other communist South American states and allies of the West: Columbia, Chile, Peru, Panama, etc then it is likely that some institution will emerge in South America to formalize the democratic alliance there. If Cuba and Venezuela get their way and turn ALBA into a 21st Century Warsaw Pact of Communist states, NATO's eyes will turn to South America to an even greater degree. French Guiana in South America is a NATO and EU member as a part of France. The USA is now building a massive new military base in Surinam and has reactivated the 4th Fleet.

Korea is a "Partner" of NATO in the CC structure. It is linked to NATO via the US-Korea MDT. Korean forces have operated under NATO command in Afghanistan. The Cold War NATO we knew, came into existence due in part to the allied joint operations during the Korean War. Then non-NATO Turkey contributed significantly to the allied Korean War effort, and was later brought into the alliance. France maintains a One Korea Policy which recognizes the Republic of Korea as the sole legitimate government of the Korean people. The precident created by the PRC's demands on the world for One China and tossing the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the UN and the Security Council has implications for the ultimate fate of the North Korean regime and the eventual reunification of Korea.

Israel is a "Partner" of NATO through the Med Dialogue. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is specifically NOT in NATO's scope of concern. NATO is working with numerous countries in the region to prepare for any NATO peacekeeping role supporting any some future comprehensive peace. NATO works with the Palestinian Authority as well and they could be brought into the Med Dialogue officially in the future. Jordan and Egypt also carry the Palestinian cause within NATO via their partnership status.

Russia is a "Partner" of NATO through the Partnership for Peace and other European institutions. This relationship is strained but official. Russia was brought into this relationship partly as a solution to the conflict created by the eastern EU and NATO expansions which from Russia's point of view violated understandings they had from the West. In June 2009 NATO and Russia announced a new initiative to return to a commitment to partnership and working through security issues. Obviously, the hope in the future is for a stable, liberal, democratic Russia that could come into the West's institutions as an allied member. The situation in Georgia is dangerous and both sides are seekign a mechanism to reduce tensions and risks. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Proposed NATO Wikiproject

Hi there, I've recently proposed a NATO Wikiproject to cover all things NATO. If you'd be interested in helping get one started, head over to the nomination page and voice your support. Cool3 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The NATO WikiProject has now been established! Please join us! Cool3 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Enlargement section

There is a notice "citation needed" for the following sentence:

Other potential candidate countries include Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina.

I have found two links on NATO official web site to support this claim:

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-montenegro/index.html

http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-bosnia-herzegovina/index.html

Ravenlord (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The word should be "appease" rather than "appeatise". This sentence could be a bit more formally written too and a citation would be good re the claim for Francee and other "big" countries.

Ozeye 10:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Euro-Atlantic Partnership

In this section Bosnia and Herzgegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (all as part of Yugoslavia) were not "Other Cold War socialist economies" but "Militarily neutral Cold War socialist economies" because Yugoslavia was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement and never a part of the Eastern Bloc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.16.218 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

History split

I'm thinking the History section is long enough could be split into a History of NATO article, with a new, perhaps simpler and more chronological, three to five paragraph summary of events used on this page. Thoughts? Anyone interested in creating this summary? I added an official Split Section Template. I also think this would help maintain Good Article status.--Patrick «» 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, fully support the suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm on second thoughts if we did remove most of the history content and replaced it with 3-5 paragraphs i think this article might be too short. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, say 10-12, or what it takes. Right now there's 37 paragraphs over 11 subsections. We could try to balance a new section into Beginnings, Cold War, and Post-Cold War. Info on historic enlargements and maybe France's withdrawal could even be in the Membership section. Right now there's lots of good info in History, but some, say the paragraph about weapons gauges or Able Archer 83, are unnecessary for an overview.--Patrick «» 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Right now the page is 72k. Before I got on top of the bloat in March it was at times over 100k - 110 at times. I think we can keep adding relevant sourced material - and there's masses missing - until we reach 90k at least. Then we can think about it again. This is also because at some point we'll need Hist of NATO 1948-60s maybe, 60s-1990/91, and Post Cold War/War on Terror whatever we call it. Lets not split without a plan. Thoughts? Buckshot06(prof) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not without a plan. And again, thanks for your work. Perhaps I or one of us could mock up an outline soon. I also think we could split off the section into a new article while keeping most of the important paragraphs intact. While it would be nice to rewrite the section, possibly improving references along the way, there's no really issue with having some of the same information on two pages.--Patrick «» 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Public attitude towards NATO in Russia

According to Interfax/BNS/Postimees, 58% of Russians have a negative attitude towards NATO. Interestingly, at the same time, NATO's nature is not well known in Russia: for example, 31% of the population thinks NATO's mission consists of "aggressive actions towards other countries". 34% have no idea what NATO is.

Source: Postimees 3 April 2009 13:56: Venelased ei salli NATOt, kuigi ei tea, mis see on. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that "aggressive actions towards other countries" are indeed part of NATO's mission. See for example, what they did in Serbia or what the are doing in Afganistan. Or what was their reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war was. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get dragged into pointless political arguments guys. Writers in Chelyabinsk will have different attitudes to writers in Rio, or Sydney, or Lahore, or whatever. Maybe we should add the data above, but not POV posturing. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

they're lke the crusaders, setting up states whereever they want. bombing serbia was not justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep it NPOV, NATO, outlined in it's charter, is for collective defense, Afghanistan, was invaded because we were attacked by terrorists being harbored in that nation,I assume Offliner, and 203.217.59.87 are Russians?--Conor Fallon (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies and Criticism?

I see bits and pieces of this throughout the article, but there should be a section dealing with the criticism of NATO and enlargement. Most of the article is to the point of being boistrous. MPA146.235.130.52 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at Enlargement of NATO. That's the place for enlargement discussions. Controversy and criticism should not be separate but in the relevant section. Buckshot06(prof) 16:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot06. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Other articles about various subjects and organizations have their own criticism/controversy section and this seems appropriate here as well. This is because sometimes there is a collective argument and because sometimes the scale of the criticism is noteworthy itself (i.e. when tens of thousands riot and burn the French/German border in protest). --Nihilozero (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need its own section, the criticism should be included in each of the sections covered. So killing of civilians in Afghanistan covered in the ISAF section etc. There should however be a section or atleast a few sentences talking about NATO summits, and that could include a mention that they often draw large crowds of scum who protest and turn violent. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism / controversy should always be integrated into the article as a whole. Splitting it to its own section inevitably reduces the quality and neutrality of an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, many articles have a criticism section. Integrating minor criticism into an article is okay at times but it results in perspectives that can become difficult to follow. (ie. flip-fops, however...however...however...however). A strength of Wikipedia is that it is not shy of having contentious material. There should, at least, be a summary of a main article Criticism of NATO. 172.130.206.193 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An article like that would rapidly become an unmaintainable dumping ground, which is why such articles are generally avoided. I maintain that criticism/controversy sections almost always lead to lower-quality articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't expect the casual reader to read the entire article just to find out if there are any controversies. I won't, at least. And since I didn't find out what I wanted, I think this article is a failure. This is an encyclopedia where you look things up, not a book you read from cover to cover. Sorry that I'm being blunt. I'm sure this is a great article for those who do read it all.--Nakerlund (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I see the article has gone over to US spelling. Considering NATO was set up by the British and itself uses UK spelling this is rather puzzling, especially as the article itself was originally in UK English. Presumably there'll by no objection if I now change US spelling to UK ones in any articles I come across.

NATO uses the spelling "Organization" not "Organisation" - look at its Web site. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How can a military alliance be set up by one nation (the British)? The USA and Canada were also founding members.--Conor Fallon (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is quite dimwitted to suggest that NATO was set up by any ONE country, no matter which one that you name. Also, the Wikipedia is a non-profit corporation set up and governed by the laws of the United States of America, and the Wikipedia itself states that American copyright laws apply to it, and that the Wikipedia is maintained on Internet servers within the United States of America. It is thus an American encyclopedia, and American spellings must apply, regardless of what certain British and Irish people might think. Arguing with this is completely wrongheaded.98.67.175.127 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, that's incorrect. See WP:ENGVAR. Buckshot06(prof) 15:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That IPs comments were stupid and certainly dont apply. However as it does use the American spelling of Organization on NATOs website we should use American English for this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. The IP's comments were stupid and don't apply. However, there's also some misunderstanding going on here so let me make a few points; first, organization is not an American spelling, it's the preferred usage by the OED amongst others. It'a actually a British English spelling, adopted now by much of the world, apart from, to a large extent, Britain - funnily enough. So the fact that NATO uses organization merely points to the international aspect of the "organization". Second point, NATO's official language variant is British, or international, English, so that's what this article should use (in effect it's BrE). Wikipedia has a prescendent in this area; the EU official English version is BrE, so all articles concering the EU should use BrE. Third point, whoever changed the spelling in this article was operating against policy. Such changes should only be made made if there is good reason (there isn't here) and if there is a consensus to do so (there isn't here). So, let's change it back please (keeping the z in organization), and have no more of this silliness. Mister Flash (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we're supposed to use the organis/z/ations own useage as the guideline, if I understand correctly, and different NATO agencies use different spellings - the NATO STandardization Agency is one that uses Zs, if memory serves correctly, for example. Make application of the rules difficult. Buckshot06(prof) 13:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's no problem here. We use "z". Nato as an organisation uses BrE, so we use that as well, including z's instead of s's. Mister Flash (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We should use Oxford British English with "z" spelling in Organis/z/ation. IJA (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW real-word British English is fairly inconsistent vis-a-vis use of 'z' or 's'. I personally don't think it is remotely as big a deal as center/centre, defense/defence etc. cf. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) --Xdamr^talk 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please add the British English pronunciation /'neɪ.toʊ/ as an alternative to the US pronunciation given. Andrewgdotcom (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

/'neɪd.oʊ/ was incorrect even for US English for two reasons:

• the "d" (sc. "t") belongs to the second syllable, not the first.
• the "d" should actually be a "t" in a phonemic pronunciation. Even those who pronounce "NATO" to sound like "playdough" do so as a result of Intervocalic alveolar flapping, whereby phonemic /t/ is weakened. And many of those same speakers would also realize ['neɪtoʊ] in more formal styles. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Text

The following sentence is garbled:

This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily.

There appears to be a chunk of text missing - could someone trawl the history and restore it? Thanks. Andrewgdotcom (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

I have done a GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I find the article to still meet the GA criteria and I have kept it as GA. H1nkles (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NATO/UN

When NATO goes on a mission, is it similar to a UN mission? Or are countries independently represented by soldiers? Unlike the blue helmets of the UN. I hope that was an English sentence :) Mallerd (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries are usually independent. But sometimes during official NATO missions, soldiers wear a NATO patch on their shoulders. It's mostly common in Europe. American soldiers generally only wear the US flag as a patch, nothing else. But most NATO missions don't always involve NATO-only members. See Afghanistan...it's a NATO-led mission. Not a NATO mission. Doesn't sound very different, but it is. In Afghanistan NATO directs most of the operations, aside from some US units which are under US-only command. The NATO-led mission has non-NATO members part of it like South Korea, Sweden, Colombia, etc etc. So in missions that include non-NATO members, no they don't wear anything specifically IDing them as NATO. It's just assumed for the most part that they are NATO.

Confusing, I know. But I hope that clears some of it up. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold War

The initial part of the article should mention NATO's position in the Cold War, that being its founding and fundamental position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.241.190 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

De Facto Global NATO

The article should include a discussion of the evolution of post Cold War NATO from a defend Europe/Turkey against the USSR/Warsaw Pact alliance to what it is today ... the primary organization within a spider web of multi-lateral and bi-lateral security agreements among the world's democracies which is replacing/substituting for the UN Security Council (blocked by Russia and China). NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. There are 42 nations operating in Afghanistan under NATO-ISAF being joined this year by Mongolia (a NATO Partnership for Peace member actively seeking closer security ties to the "West"), Columbia a NATO associate by virtue of its bilateral military relationship with the USA and it active participation in RIMPAC and connections to the Pacific security spider web ANZUS/FPDA/NATO-CC/the USA Mutual Defense Agreements (Japan, Korea, Philippines, and the Pacific Island nations), and India (nuclear tech pact with France and the USA).

Consider Chile - "Chile's integration into a worldwide military network led by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, however, is not limited to weapons purchases. The nation was one of only five non-NATO states to provide troops for the first-ever NATO out-of-area military deployment, Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia, in 1995 .... It has since participated in regular military exercises under the command of the United States and its NATO allies. ...

It participates in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises led by the United States and Britain, ... In 2008 the RIMPAC exercise included 35 ships, six submarines, over 150 aircraft and 20,000 troops from Chile, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea and Singapore, a NATO/Asia Pacific NATO/Latin American NATO nexus in embryo." - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13788

7o62x39 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Here are the non-NATO countries that have sent forces under NATO command to the three major operation NATO has conducted outside of the original NATO defense and operating area:

SFOR - Bosnia - 1998-2004 Australia Austria Argentina Chile Egypt Finland Ireland Malaysia Morocco New Zealand Russia Sweden

KFOR - Kosovo - 1999-Present Argentina Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Bosnia Chile Finland Georgia Ghana India Ireland Malaysia Mongolia Morocco Philippines Sweden Switzerland UAE

ISAF - Afghanistan - 2001-Present Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain (Naval) Bosnia Columbia Finland Georgia India Ireland Japan (Naval) Jordan Korea (Rep.) Macedonia Mongolia New Zealand Serbia Singapore Sweden Switzerland UAE Ukraine

Note that the four larger non-NATO member (although they are formally NATO "partners") EU states - Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden have sent forces to all three recent NATO operations. 7o62x39 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Spelling (continuation)

Please see the debate above about AmE vesus BrE spelling in the article. To enlarge on it slightly here, the spelling in this article should be BrE, for the reasons I've noted above. At the moment it's a mixture and looks bad. So I intend to standardise on BrE (including z in organization). However, there may be instances in the article; direct quotations etc. where AmE should be used; hopefully I'll spot them all. If there's any doubt about NATO laguage usage please see their website. Mister Flash (talk)

NATO uses Oxford British English therefore so should this article. IJA (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) is Missing

The ICI is a formal dialogue and partnering program with the same status within NATO as the PfP, the Contact Countries (aka Global Partners: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand) and the Med dialogue. The ICI includes the six states of the GCC/PS - four of which have formally joined (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE) and two are preparing to do so (Saudi Arabia and Oman). NATO discusses this initiative carefully and it includes a potential role for NATO and the GCC working together through the ICI should a comprehensive peace be achieved between Israel and Palestine. NATO is careful to include the Palestinian Authority as a recognized entitiy with whom dialogue is occuring. NATO is preparing for security options that it may support should the UN authorize such a role in conjunction with a comprehensive peace. At present, NATO is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is not something that is part of NATO's scope. 66.182.3.61 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

What about Pakistan?

Can somebody add some info on that to the main article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan has no formal relationship with NATO. I find no indication of Pakistani forces operating in Afghanistan under ISAF (although interestingly India is sending forces to Afghanistan under NATO command in 2009). However NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan does communicate and coordinate on various operational and intelligence matters relating to both Afghanistan and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Region. This "cooperation" is a poker game with both sides having mixed motives.

Pakistan was a member of the Cold War era CENTO which was something like NATO operating in South Asia, but has since been dissolved. Pakistan is an idiosyncratic nation whose foreign policy and geopolitical strategy is complex. Pakistan has two major focuses which are unique to itself; the rivalry with India, both over the disputed region of Kashmir and as the protector of India's significant Muslim minority, and Afghanistan which itself is a complex mix of various ethnic groups the largest of which is virtually identical to many of the peoples of Pakistan's west. Pakistan also seeks influence in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) as a Muslim nation which helps it counter India strategically. (India has effectively countered this desire with its actions dating back before the Pakistani Civil War).

During the Cold War, Pakistan sided with the West, while India (although officially non-aligned) tilted towards the USSR. Pakistan's relationship with NATO happens indirectly by virtue of the USA-Pakistani relationship which itself is a marriage by necessity and circumstance. At the end of the Cold War, Pakistan was the conduit through which the USA, Saudi Arabia and others (including Pakistan) funneled resources to the Muslim Afghan resistance against the USSR backed Afghan communists. These forces also conducted offensive special operations inside the bordering Muslim republics of the former USSR. If Afghanistan was payback to the USSR for Vietnam, these ops were payback for El Salvador and USSR/Communist aggression in Central America during the 1980s. Pakistan knew well that the USSR's only strategic interest in Afghanistan was as a launching point to breakup or take over Pakistan (or Iran) and fulfill the USSR/Russian centuries old desire for access to a warm and open water port for its Navy. After the Soviet withdraw and the fall of the Afghan communists, the USA lost interest in the nation and Pakistan was left with the mess to manage. The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan took place in this period. Pakistan has long sought to transform Afghanistan into a de facto Pakistani vassal through support of the Pashtun ethnic group which is common to both countries. The Pashtuns comprised a significant element of the Taliban. The so called "moderate" Taliban which the Obama administration is seeking to split off and come to terms with is to a large extent, that element of the Taliban that Pakistan can control or at least influence.

Pakistan's 2009 offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating in western Pakistan required the USA to seek Indian cooperation. India recently announced it was removing troops from the Pakistani boarder and Kashmir, thus allowing Pakistan to send forces from the Indian border to the west.

Pakistan's need to counter the Indian nuclear capability and missile gap, created an alliance of convenience with North Korea. Pakistani nuke tech got exchanged for North Korean missile tech. Pakistani cooperation with North Korea has probably ceased since Pakistan now has sufficient tech in missiles and the cost to play with North Korea in terms of Pakistan's relationship with the West is high.

Pakistan also has a complex relationship with other Central Asian nations and China. Pakistan saw China as a second ally to the USA via the India-China rivalry (an enemy of my enemy is my friend). But this is complicated as both the Taliban and before that the USA/Saudi backed Muslim forces have links to the Muslim and Turkic Uighur peoples of Western China. Pakistani fingerprints are found on Uighur insurgencies inside China. At various times in the past, the USA has lent covert support to the Uighurs as a card to play when the Chinese acted elsewhere in support of communist insurgencies. (No doubt India as well is none too pleased with Chinese fingerprints on Indian Communist insurgencies and their overt support of the Nepalese Maoists). The July 2009 Uighur riots highlight the tensions inside China with respect to its Muslim minorities. Most probably the USA has ceased any support of the Uighurs as it seeks Chinese cooperation on North Korea and the USA's War on Terrorism (although Uighurs captured in Taliban camps and sent to Gitmo were subsequently released to Palau and Bermuda rather than returned to China). The USA also considers support of the Uighurs as a very high risk game given the implications of the vastly more critical Sino-American relationship.

The Korean situation also impacts Pakistan. China's North Korean gambit is very high risk and reckless. North Korea is the prime element of the Chinese game of talking peace and covertly promoting whatever chaos in the world drains the USA and the West (inclusive of Japan and the Republic of Korea). This all works to China's advantage to the extent they keep a lid on it. But the North Koreans are lunatics. Regardless, China made its choice and from the USA/Korea/Japanese point of view, China will be held responsible for North Korea, period. If the Korean situation gets out of control, the CIA will be talking to the Pakistanis about the Uighurs. If a North Korean nuke goes off anywhere outside a North Korean cave, USA nuke, missile (and more anti-missile) tech goes to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and India (especially if Pakistan balks on arming the Uighurs, given that a good portion of the North Korean nuke tech came from Pakistan. The USA and France's civilian nuke tech pacts with India was among many other things a card played on China and Pakistan for North Korea). Bottom line, Korea affects Pakistan.

Understanding Pakistan begins with a recognition that the Pakistani's are nationalists who play realpolitiks not internationalist liberal altruism and act in the interests of Pakistan; not any other power. Declaring Pakistan simply a tool of the USA completely misses the delicate game Pakistan plays under a very complicated set of regional circumstances and realities it does not fully control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Global NATO on North Korea

"the Alliance calls upon Pyongyang to fulfil its international obligations. The NAC urges North Korea to implement fully all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and to eliminate its nuclear weapons and related programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern." 7o62x39 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

2009 NATO Strategic Concept Initiative / Global NATO / Future Relationship of NATO Partners

The NATO article continues to fail to fully discuss and correctly describe NATO in 2009, not 1989. NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. The past issues of defense of European members' colonial possessions has evolved as they have shed most of what will be shed and via the evolution of the EU as well as their national political systems have tranformed these remaining possessions into politically incorporated regions. For example, French Guiana and Reunion are no longer French 1960s colonial possessions ambiguously related to NATO but are fully incorporated regions of the French state and the EU. That is, Reunion would be defended by NATO as an attack on France (and the EU) itself, just as an attack on Hawaii would be. The relationship between the EU and NATO has also evolved and was formalized by the Berlin Agreements and through other Atlantic and European institutions. Thus the non-NATO EU states are de facto, albeit sui generis, affiliated states of NATO, not members but not merely partners. By not becoming NATO members they are not treaty bound to Article 5 but in all other respects they act as members. The relationship with Japan, Australia, Korea and New Zealand has also evolved to something like that of the non-NATO EU states.

Excerpts from NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the opening of the strategic concept seminar, July 7, 2009:

"First and foremost, I hope the new Strategic Concept will finally lay to rest the notion that there is any distinction between security at home and security abroad. Globalisation has abolished the protection that borders or geographical isolation from crisis areas used to provide. Article 5, as I have said, can apply outside NATO territory as much as inside. Today the challenge is not to defend our territory but our populations; and they, unlike our territory, move around. Our challenge is not just to make our populations secure, but feel secure – a much more complicated task which, to my mind, necessitates a much better job of communicating NATO’s activities and real achievements to our publics.

At the same time, the new Strategic Concept should also reassure our new Allies that NATO takes its Article 5 collective defence commitment seriously; not just on paper but through planning and exercises as well as having the necessary capabilities to call on in crisis situations. Allies who feel secure at home are much more likely to transform their forces for expeditionary operations and send them to Afghanistan or elsewhere. Article 5 collective defence is, after all, the bedrock of the Alliance, and has been for 60 years. We should not feel bashful in discussing it in the Alliance. It is purely defensive. But we should not go overboard either. The situation in Europe does not call for military build-ups which would be counter-productive as well as wasteful. The threats to our security today lie mainly outside Europe, notably from extremism in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere. That must remain our focus whether it be reinforcing ISAF or reinforcing closer links with key neighbours such as Pakistan. This said, reassuring Allies who feel less secure than others in their immediate neighbourhood is not that hard to do; but we must do it. NATO cannot function in the long run with two types of membership: those who feel secure and willing to transform and those who feel less secure and are less willing. ...

A fourth concern has to do with partnerships. A commentator once spoke of NATO’s “partnership industry”. One of the things that I am most satisfied with during my watch has been the continued growth of NATO’s partnerships, particularly outside Europe, in North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf, and the Asia-Pacific region. A NATO without Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, or the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has become unthinkable. Many of our partners are with us today and will take part in our Strategic Concept debates. Rightly so, for Partners are no longer outside the NATO community, but inside; making indispensable contributions not only to the Partnership activities but also to NATO’s core business, such as military operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo or the Mediterranean. But I believe we are far from getting the best value out of our partnerships. Our political consultations beyond operations have too often become stale and ritualistic when there is so much quality analysis and experience that we should be exchanging on a regular basis. The value of our Partners to us must not be linked only to how many troops they contribute to ISAF or KFOR. Partners have an intrinsic value in their own right and we need to be much more imaginative in cooperating on other challenges: energy security, proliferation, cyber, terrorism – to name but the most obvious. Here again the new Strategic Concept has to move partnerships to the next generation." 7o62x39 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Major non-NATO ally

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNNA I feel this section should be mentioned somewhere within the NATO article. Although not officially sanctioned by NATO, it is an official designation by the United States and carries with it military repercussions. Also, these countries participate and support a wide variety of NATO missions, so a brief mention should be included.

Disagree strongly. Belongs in the United States Department of Defense article, not the NATO article; it's 'non-NATO,' after all. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Buckshot, that US MNNA status is not directly relevant to this NATO article. That said every MNNA has a relationship of some form with NATO. The article would be improved by expanding the discussion of the relationships of NATO with its partners. The article could also discuss how NATO fits within the larger context of the overall security alliances, treaties and military exercises amongst the liberal democracies. The reality is that the NATO "Community" (NATO members and all of its partners and cooperating nations) is acting more and more like a de facto substitute/alternative to the disfunctional and corrupted UN and UN Security Council on issues of security.7o62x39 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

We need a much stronger and more detailed discussion of what NATO's cold war role and development was before we move into recent-ism like this. Whether NATO and its coalition partners are acting as an alternative to the UNSC is very open to debate: much of Africa does not agree with the UN's role in Somalia, and China and Russia would certainly argue that NATO is a virtual 'rogue alliance' rather than a postive security player. However, this is not what we're here for: we're here to improve the article. 7o62x39, please stop expanding our talk pages and add to articles. Wikipedia is not a blog. Buckshot06(prof) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Leader change

The leader is now Anders Fogh Rasmussen, not Jaap de hoop Scheffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.212.109 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

French in the lead

It's not necessary to have French in the lead. This is an English encyclopedia, and the English name is official. The reason to include alternative names in the lead is for clarity when the English version is not official. The French name is not important and it's cluttering the lead. Oreo Priest ^talk 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The French name is official to NATO, just like Arab, Chinese, French etc. are official to the UN and many languages are official EU languages. The common practice on Wikipedia is to reflect this in the infoboxes, and in the lead if there are not more than a couple other languages. - SSJ ☎ 13:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

France Chickened Out in 1950s but came back in 2009

The article should give more info as to why France chickened out, when the going was tough and the Soviet troops were ready to invade Europe during the 1950s. They wanted to strike a "peace" accord with the Russians, like their 5-star General Petain made with the Germans a decade ago.

It is interesting that they wanted to come back to this alliance now that the Russian threat is over. Are they now ready to fight in Afghanistan with a sizeable number of troops ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.93.75 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they "chickened out" as so much as realized their vision of a multipolar world (USA as one pole, USSR/Russia and possibly China as another, and France acted as a third pole) was a total pipe dream. They've made a lot of people mad in the US and Eastern Europe...and now they have an administration that isn't 1) a quasi-socialist "we are the world" party, and 2) worried about French supremacy. They're more in line with the Eastern Europe, US, UK way of thinking. Essentially de Gaulle is dead...and was a fool. They finally realize this now. Besides, it's easier and better in the long term to agree with the West than to try and pretend you're its leader by taking contrary view points to show how "independent" you are. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} add link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natochannel in resources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voica emil (talk • contribs) 08:51, 9 September 2009

Not done: The target page was deleted. Celestra (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink request

{{editsemiprotected}} I have recently created an article on Kori Schake, whose name is mentioned in this article. If appropriate, can someone please create a link to the Kori Schake article. Note: it appears here on the NATO page as "Schake, Kori". I would do it myself, but the semi-protection apparently affects new editors as well as anonymous ones. Thanks for your help. Hoover Press (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already linked. Cheers,  Skomorokh  03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

References

How does one go about adding references? Prmwp (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Add an <ref> tag at the start of the reference material you wish to add, then add a </ref> tag at the end. See WP:CITE for more information. Buckshot06(prof) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is closed to new edits. How does one add references in this case? Prmwp (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see the {{editsemiprotected}} tags above. Place the text and/or references here, tell me where you wish them to go, and I'll add them. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks

<ref> Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.</ref>

<ref> Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. </ref>

Prmwp (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The further reading section doesn't use references tags - they're straight text. Second, these aren't your books, by any chance? Buckshot06(prof) 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks

Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.

Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmwp (talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The September 11 Attacks

On September 11, the United States attacked suspected non-evangelicals resulting in many deaths. The article should specify that it is referencing September 11, 2001 because many others were killed in other attacks on September 11. It is disrespectful to those killed on September 11 to imply that all of the deaths of September 11 occurred on September 11, 2001 during the Presidential reading lesson of Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegenwind (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Georgia / Ukraine article edit request

Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fizzspethwerk. I've added the citation. It's not often that we get helpful suggestions like that, so thankyou. In future, it might be an idea to add a note to the bottom of the talk page - this is sort-of an archive up the page. Just start a new section. Kind regards and thanks again. Buckshot06(prof) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NATO-EU, Contact Nations

The relationship between the EU and NATO has evolved over time and change in recent years with France becoming more pro-Atlantic and the understanding of the EU's role inside of NATO. Today the EU's ESDP and NATO are "separable but not separate" and the EU can act on security matters only if NATO declines to do so. Under the EU's ESDP the six Non-NATO EU states have a sui generis relationship with NATO. It is ERRONEOUS to list Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta as "red" "membership not a goal" as they have de facto membership in NATO by virtue of their membership in the EU. What ever this relationship is correctly termed it is not "membership not a goal".

The four contact countries - Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand also have their own sui generis relationships with NATO. The wiki article states that this relationship is not formalized which is self-evidently incorrect since it is formalized under the definition of a contact nation. All four nations contributed military forces to Afghanistan under the USA's mutual defense enactment. 7o62x39 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

The NATO map of membership is inconsistent with wikipedia maps of other military/security organizations such as the CSTO and the SCO with respect to definitions of association. The SCO map list "observers". The non-NATO EU states should be catagorized as "ESDP associated states of NATO." The four contact nations should be catagorized as such and labeled as such on the map. Australia, whose forces in Kosovo were under NATO command is far more associated with NATO than India is with the SCO (India is listed as an "observer" on the wikipedia map of the SCO). 7o62x39 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

The article states, "Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan currently have this status." This is not very precise language as the four are actually "examples" of nations with this status that are identified on the NATO website - http://www.nato.int/issues/contact_countries/index.html. The term "other partners across the globe" is used as a synonym with "contact countries" in various NATO documents. The article fails to mention evolutions in the concept since 2004. At the 2006 Riga Summit, NATO pledged to increase the operational relevance of relations with interested Contact Countries and decisions taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit defined NATO’s objectives for its relationships with partners across the globe. 7o62x39 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Redirect from "western alliance"

I came to the NATO page as part of a redirect from the 'western alliance' term linked in a different article. I think the two terms are not the same, nor is the latter short hand for the former in popular understandings. It doesn't make sense in light of the article linked from either (biography of 1980s NZ PM David Lange), which didn't discuss anything relating to NATO or NATO's area of interest at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.198.226 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)