|
| Rehabilitation | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 24 2015, 12:08 PM (369 Views) | |
| Litos | Mar 24 2015, 12:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Martin Erdmann Permanent Representative to NATO Ladies and Gentlemen, The reputation of this alliance has suffered and declined to the point of nonexistence. We hope that all of you will be wiling to chart a new course and chart a new path towards the promotion of peace, prosperity, and democracy. We hope to establish peacekeeping missions in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Atlantic to exercise our superior naval power for good use, t o respond to conflict areas and provide all kinds of economic and humanitarian aid in a "NATO for Humanity" project. Only through this kind of re-branding can we afford to recuperate from the Turkish gambit. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| winisle | Mar 25 2015, 06:34 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Sir Adam Thomson UK Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council With all due respect, but the proposed "resolution" is preposterous and impossible to live up to. For example, a vast majority of the membership nations fails to live up to the 2% goal in military spending, and for the 28 membership nations to do that, and also commit $20 billion annually, which is close to $1 billion annually per nation, is asking to much. This must be much more refined, and put into equal terms, as in percentage of GDP. At this time, only a handful of nations is meeting the UN 0.7% of GDP (GNI) target, and we suggest that the NATO commitment is but a part of this. On the commitment of 20 destroyers to combat piracy around the Horn of Africa and Gulf of Aden, if you doesn't count the USN, the NATO fleets does not contain that many destroyers. Also, deploying that kind of warship to hunt for small, open wooden boats is not the best way to go. Also, what would the task be fore the 500 Special Forces soldiers committed to the operation, and under which rules of engagement would it operate. We are also unsure on number 7-9 on the list. Edited by winisle, Mar 25 2015, 06:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 25 2015, 07:31 PM Post #12 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Martin Erdmann Permanent Representative to NATO We thank Britain for their kind and diplomatic words. With all due respect, it is the counterargument that the burden of aid being divided evenly which is "preposterous". This alliance, including its aid budgets, can easily afford by means of diversion 20 billion dollars. If you would like 10, saying so is an important first step. Our combined aid budgets exceed 100 billion, and NATO wide aid gains more soft power attention and is more effective. We are more than amenable to the .7% of GDP target, which is far in excess to the twenty billion aid fund. Actually, Japan and a number of other countries have deployed larger ships for combating Somali pirates, who do not operate with "wooden boats" but with modern GPS, assault rifles, and rockets. They are deadly and have their own stock market to commit to raids before they even happen. This is a multi-million dollar industry. The ships need not be deployed year round with full maintenance costs, as shown by the precedent of Operation Atalanta. We suggest that the twenty ships and five hundred special forces be committed to all naval stability operations. Furthermore, the Allied Command would determine rules of operation, which are circumstantial as in the case of the 2009 United States SEAL rescue operation. Edited by Litos, Mar 25 2015, 07:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 25 2015, 10:19 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Sir Adam Thomson UK Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council The United Kingdom is one of the few nations in the world that is close to the 0.7% target set by the UN over 45 years ago. That is our total foreign aid contribution. We are not, in any way, able, or willing, to turn it towards NATO aid missions, even if we do agree with Germany on most of the listed missions. The ones we see as the most likely to be "NATO-esque" in nature, is the one that aims at combating the sale of conflict resources, be it oil, diamonds or other types of resources. We would also like to propose that NATO-aid is used for the rehabilitation of child-soldiers and others that have been afflicted by prolonged conflict, rather than an aim at reducing poverty, hunger or disease, as there is other bodies in the world that is already handling those areas. We know that larger ships has been deployed earlier, and that Somali, and other, pirates are a far cry above sailing pirates that the wooden boat remark could give light of. It is still a large overkill, and unnecessary, to commit a $2 billion destroyer to a task that an OPV is perfectly suited to handle. One of the most effective missions in Operation Atlanta has been when small raiders and helicopters has cooperated from amphibious warships. We would suggest that NATO members would look towards the smaller end of the scale, to provide an affordable deployment of enough hulls. For example, we would rather see Germany send 2 or 3 Gepard FAC's than one Sachsen class frigate. The UK would be considering both River-class OPV's and Offshore Raiding Crafts, operating from amphibious warships. |
![]() |
|
| KnightConcorde | Mar 26 2015, 02:04 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Canada
|
Elissa Golberg Permanent Representative for Canada to NATO | Représentant permanent du Canada auprès de l'OTAN Canada agrees with the UK in that the projected requirement for 20 destroyers should be changed to a requirement for 20 warships with blue-water capabilities. However, we disagree with the in that the force should primarily consist of OPV's, as OPV's are not designed for long-range blue-water missions and would be best suited for a mission of this type if it was within range of a naval base. I would like to suggest that the bulk of the mission involve corvette's and frigates, backed by a small number of OPV's that possess long range capabilities and, if possible, helicopter pads capable of supporting helicopters in the 5-8 ton range. Canada will commit funding to a humanitarian aid mission led by NATO in its current form OR if it is modified to reflect the arguments of the UK, as both are vital missions that do not have enough funding being committed too either of them. However Canada would prefer that both be committed to, as focusing on one while ignoring the other could exasperate both, as we have seen on numerous occasions with military-oriented missions that undervalue corresponding humanitarian ones. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 26 2015, 04:10 PM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Sir Adam Thomson UK Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council The change in language to denote warships rather than destroyers is a good step, but we do not see why we should focus on blue-water capability, when we de facto are facing a green water situation, that is, faster boats that operates in relative coastal waters. Yes, any ship sent should have to be able to fend for itself, or have a designated "mothership", but again, one of the most succesful cobinations has been that of smaller, fast raider type of boats, together with helicopters, operating from amphibious warships. This apporach gives an ability to provide great area coverage, and the ability tto meet several patrol demands at the same time as the combination will provide enough of an military advantage over the pirates. Several NATO members have OPV's in the 1000 ton class, able to operate in blue-water situations for close to a month at a time, and there is many of them also able to carry helicopters with them. These vessels, even while they are today called patrol vessels, are de facto the size of an early WW2 destroyer, and has ample resources to handle the threat provided by the modern day pirate. |
![]() |
|
| Sadar | Mar 28 2015, 02:07 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
Zyta Gilowska Permanent Representatitve to NATO In Poland's humble opinion, such a mission requires the capacity to move and react quickly. We are aligned with Britain's point of view. We acknowledge the importance of having 1-2 big vessels as for operational support matters. However, the core operations cqn be undertaken by OPV's and helicopters. Something needs be to assessed as well. Such operations would requiere support from an inland campbase that would allow to cut clean pirates boats trajectory. Support and cooperation from Somaliland for example and local tribes seem compulsory as this issue can only be solved if the issue is cut from its roots. We would like to hear from the US representative as to which extent inland and sea mission can be further discussed here. Inland, of course coastal, should be in secure territory but a requirement to improve sea operations efficiency and success rate. Edited by Sadar, Mar 28 2015, 02:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| KnightConcorde | Mar 29 2015, 06:11 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Canada
|
Elissa Golberg Permanent Representative for Canada to NATO | Représentant permanent du Canada auprès de l'OTAN In light of the arguments brought up by the Polish and UK representatives, the Canadian Government now agrees that the majority of the 20 warships should consist of blue-water capable OPV's, with a small number of frigates and/or destroyers in support, and one of two amphibious assault ships or amphibious transport docks for C2 and QRF purposes. However, Canada does not agree that NATO should unilaterally begin littoral interceptions of illegal vessels, especially since such as mission would violate the sovereignty of the nations where the mission would occur. Instead we believe that NATO should cooperate with nations in the area's where this naval force will operate in order to figure out a system for patrolling the littoral area's. If such an agreement entails that NATO nations deploy vessels in the littorals, then Canada would support the mission. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 29 2015, 07:00 PM Post #18 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Martin Erdmann Permanent Representative to NATO We concur with the requirement for sealer loads of ships for maneuverability, and the focusing of NATO aid on missions to use our resources in war to create peace, rehabilitate child soldiers, and eject emergency strategic packages into conflict areas to prevent a blooming of the conflict after one has ended, or beyond existing grounds if one is about to erupt. We can use the model of the 2010 injection into the Kivu as a model. We will draft amendments shortly unless there are alternative contributors. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Apr 27 2015, 10:53 AM Post #19 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
We'd like to move this forward with this amendment to the resolution:. This gives us the speed factor to leap forward with this initiative and restore the peace that NATO needs. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Apr 27 2015, 11:16 AM Post #20 |
|
United States Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization My government has started a number of initiatives aimed at strengthening the Alliance's position in Europe, and is in the process of focusing our efforts to contain and roll back the spread of terrorist groups. We would like to see a greater roll for NATO members in these operations, and more coordination in Libya between NATO partners. We are in agreement that a program aimed at rehabilitating child soldiers and encouraging groups who use child soldiers to cease using child soldiers would be a prudent step forward. I also intend to bring forward to President Clinton the possibility of expanding the Human Rights & Democracy Fund, and introducing a new Young Democracy Fund in which aid can be forwarded to countries struggling with the transition from an authoritarian style of government to a more democratic society. We believe that the UN Democracy Fund should also be increased, and would welcome discussion on the matter in the United Nations. Especially if Canada or Germany brought up the matter in the General Assembly. With regards to the number of vessels in the proposed anti piracy mandate we believe that 20 is too high, and that NATO anti piracy operations would be better served not with Destroyers but with smaller frigate or corvette sized vessels backed up by supply ships and at least one amphibious assault vessel outfitted in a maritime patrol roll. $20 Billion to non-NATO member countries is also a rather excessive commitment in this age of austerity minded governments, and we would like to propose the establishment of a smaller fund of $8 to $10 Billion USD. We would like to see a fund for Eastern European countries to assist them in upgrading their infrastructure so that they can handle larger European armored vehicles as it has come to our attention that many bridges in Eastern Europe are to this day unable to support the weight of a Abrams or Leopard 2 main battle tank. We would also encourage member states to increase military spending, but would refrain from making such a commitment mandatory in any agreement. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |











6:36 AM Jul 11
