Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NATO poised to affiliate with Seoul
Asia Finest Discussion Forum > Asian Culture > Korean Chat > Korean Serious Talk
SantaKlaws
QUOTE
NATO poised to affiliate with Seoul

‘Global partnership' status could be effective in 2008


June 27, 2006 ㅡ WASHINGTON ― The United States and Britain have proposed that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invite South Korea, Japan and Australia to join as "global partners," a senior U.S. government official told the JoongAng Ilbo in a recent interview. The official, who asked that his name not be used, said the three nations may be able to win that associate status by 2008 if they wished to do so.

NATO's secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, has stressed repeatedly in speeches and briefings that such global partnerships do not mean that NATO is seeking to become a global alliance. Although the U.S. official said that Seoul's affiliation would exclude participation in purely military operations, Mr. Scheffer told a group in Sofia, Bulgaria, on April 27, "We will need to look at how to strengthen our relations with other interested and potentially force contributing countries, such as Australia or New Zealand. While NATO is not a global alliance, we need global partners to continue to meet today's challenges."

South Korea could be asked to participate in peacekeeping and disaster relief operations as part of the partnership, a source at the U.S. State Department said Saturday, but stressed that the partnership would have no relevance to inter-Korean security issues.

During the meeting of NATO foreign ministers that Mr. Scheffer was attending, Washington and London proposed inviting Australia, Japan and Korea to form a partnership, according to that State Department official. The proposal was received positively, he said, adding that the U.S. government has been encouraging Seoul to accept.

That official also denied that the intent of the partnerships would be to check Chinese expansion, saying that the idea of inviting China to join as a partner had not been ruled out.

A decision on extending invitations to the three nations will be made at the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, in November, he said. Two years of prepatory work would be required before the formal partnership goes into effect.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has 26 members and, to date, 20 global partners, including Russia. Partner nations have representatives at NATO headquarters in Belgium. Partners also participate in the Atlantic Treaty Association, a group of national organizations promoting the work of NATO and the Atlantic Treaty that is the group's charter.

Although NATO has intervened in some regional disputes in the past two decades, it has also been groping for a core mission since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of its founding purpose, deterrence of a Soviet attack on Western Europe.


by Kang Chan-ho <myoja@joongang.co.kr>


http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200606/26/2...0090409041.html
CJK
Hmm, sounds like a good opportunity for a security pact with nations other than the US.

Though Korea should be wary about this proposal.
KJlost
Global partnership business probably means disaster relief operations peace-keeping, anti-terrorist and anti-piracy patrol cooperation. This move is probably to involve South Korea more in these international operations, and to give Japan a formal right to be involved.

South Korea has been involved in various foreign support and peace-keeping operations before, but the level of involvement and the number of times the South Korean government had committed actual forces is pathetically low minus few exceptions.
MING-LOYALIST
This is most likely aimed at China/Russia.
SantaKlaws
In that case, take out Russia.
MING-LOYALIST
Why?
Nato expansion will only push China and Russia closer together.
SantaKlaws
Because according to the original article in Korean, Russia is already a partner of NATO.
MING-LOYALIST
Ok I misunderstood.
Partner of NATO is not the same as part of NATO.
CJK
I believe this expansion is aimed at the rising threat from China and North Korea.
KJlost
I wonder about that. If it was a true security pact against China containment policy, shouldn't something bigger than 'partner' status of NATO be enabled? Partner is a pretty flexible term after all.
SantaKlaws
I think NATO is too big to be a part of the "China containment policy". But I do look at it as an alternative to UN. UN is seriously fu-ked up.
my2cents
*removed*
SantaKlaws
Mods, please take that filthy trash out of here.
my2cents
*removed*
Kay Dis Nine
No, its because you just joined yesterday and have 18 posts already.
kaizen
QUOTE(my2cents @ Jun 28 2006, 01:34 AM) [snapback]1997444[/snapback]

lol...maybe because I just dash your anti-china dream by giving cold hard facts, huh?

Because your cold hard facts comes from your cold hard @$$.
northwestern_student
seriously some cjomese should find another to release their nationalistic outbursts...like what the koreans have done, in football games, lol
grunt
QUOTE(northwestern_student @ Jun 28 2006, 10:36 AM) [snapback]1998198[/snapback]

seriously some cjomese should find another to release their nationalistic outbursts...like what the koreans have done, in football games, lol


they couldn't play on worldcup soccer so, no way to release their nationalistic outbursts ... Let's be understandable embarassedlaugh.gif

intercar
QUOTE(KJlost @ Jun 26 2006, 06:08 PM) [snapback]1993027[/snapback]


South Korea has been involved in various foreign support and peace-keeping operations before, but the level of involvement and the number of times the South Korean government had committed actual forces is pathetically low minus few exceptions.



This is SO wrong. Korea committed some 300,000 troops in Vietnam. 5000 died and about 23,000 were wounded. There really is no ally of the US that has committed so many troops to contain communism post WWII. Referring to this as merely an "exception" as you seem to do really does an injustice to the brave korean troops and to the extensive level of committment S. Korea showed over the many YEARS that SK troops fought in Vietnam!

SK has the third larget troop committment in IRAQ after the US and Britain. SK also has many troops in Afghanistan. Many of the US and coalition troops get treatment from Korean doctors. Involvment with NATO would probably involve similar committments. but I don't see korea making that many more troop committments than what they are doing already in Afghanistan and Iraq EVEN with NATO involvement.

Also, what no one ever mentions is the millions of SK men who have stood guard ready to fight North Korea, a communist dictatorship that was heavily supported by the SOVIET UNION and COMMUNIST CHINA. Without communist support NK would have folded a long time ago. SK troops are in the front line in the fight against communism or rather its chinese variation.

Ask any young South Korean young man or office worker what he would do if the North attacked and I can assure you that a high percentage would say that they would pick up a gun and defend their country.

As many American presidents have said when visiting the DMZ, it is the most dangerous place on earth and millions of brave South Korean men have defended that border for decades.

South Koreans are doing their part for freedom but they rarely get the credit they deserve. I wonder why??
KJlost
Don't bloody patronize me. Vietnam and Iraq is a completely different situation than what I am talking about. It's naive to think South Korean troops would have been there without American incentives and pressure. I have every ounce of respect for OUR troops, but that is the truth.

What I am talking about is South Korean incentive to get involved. Disaster relief, anti-piracy patrols, UN sanctioned peacekeeping operations, the level of involvement and cooperation in these areas are low for South Korea. These perfectly reasonable and respectable international duties are largely ignored by the South Korean government.

Save for East Timor situation, South Korean UN PKO activities are limited to several dozen observer status. The government turned down the offer to join the international anti-piracy patrol in the Malacca strait where nearly 100% of South Korean oils passes through.

This has NOTHING to do with defense of freedom 'lecture' I've heard so f*cking many times, or the bravery and loyalty South Korean soldiers, but the GOVERNMENT'S neglect to protect its image and interests. There is a REASON why South Korean military commitments are overlooked.
intercar
QUOTE(KJlost @ Jun 29 2006, 12:19 AM) [snapback]2000964[/snapback]

Don't bloody patronize me. Vietnam and Iraq is a completely different situation than what I am talking about. It's naive to think South Korean troops would have been there without American incentives and pressure. I have every ounce of respect for OUR troops, but that is the truth.

What I am talking about is South Korean incentive to get involved. Disaster relief, anti-piracy patrols, UN sanctioned peacekeeping operations, the level of involvement and cooperation in these areas are low for South Korea. These perfectly reasonable and respectable international duties are largely ignored by the South Korean government.

Save for East Timor situation, South Korean UN PKO activities are limited to several dozen observer status. The government turned down the offer to join the international anti-piracy patrol in the Malacca strait where nearly 100% of South Korean oils passes through.

This has NOTHING to do with defense of freedom 'lecture' I've heard so f*cking many times, or the bravery and loyalty South Korean soldiers, but the GOVERNMENT'S neglect to protect its image and interests. There is a REASON why South Korean military commitments are overlooked.



So korean troops were sent out of "incentives" or self-interest but then what about America troops? Do american presidents send american young boys to to die in foreign lands out of altruism? Democracy? Bah!

Countries act in their self interest. it was in korea's self interest to send troops to vietnam just as it was in america's self interest to send troops to vietnam. You're the one who's being naive here. of course that fact does not take away from the bravery of the soldiers who fought in that war.

also sending forces to the Malacca strait would have pissed off the chinese who regard that area as within their sphere of influence. Is it in korea's interest to tangle with the chinese right now? especially when we need their cooperation in dealing with NK? and the Indonesians would not have been too pleased either.

You've offered a bad example to base your criticism of korea while also minimizing the important work korea has done in Timor! In fact the next secretary general of the UN might in fact be a Korean so obviously world opinion of korean diplomatic efforts are much more postive on korean contributions than you are.

it's obvious you're the one who's naive. obviously, korea could do more for disaster relief but you could say that for every nation. when the Asian tsunami occured the rich arab oil states did very little to help out their fellow muslims. perhaps you should direct some criticism there.

as for Iraq, why should korea "do more" there when the european nations who have closer strategic interests to iraq are doing less than korea? It would be absurd for korea to send ten thousand men each to Afghanistan and Iraq while Germany and Italy send much fewer. A stable iraq and middle east is even more important for Germany and Italy than Korea. Even Australia, a traditional ally of the US has sent very few troops.

KJlost
I never said we should do more for Iraq.

South Korea, along with Japanese and Chinese were asked by Southeast Asian nations to commit in the anti-piracy operations, but turned the invitation down.

In Iraq, despite having sent over 3000 troops, President Bush 'forgot' to mention South Korean contingent.

For Vietnam, it turned out to be the fact that it was good overall for South Korea to have sent combat troops over, in retrospect. However, the South Korean government was more or less forced to act when US made moves to relocate American forces in Korea to Vietnam. I don't recognize that as Korean inniative.

What I am blaming is that the government rarely promotes itself in the world sphere, yet wishes to be recognized. Providing funds isn't enough. Making a show of providing help is everything.
intercar
QUOTE(KJlost @ Jun 29 2006, 01:21 AM) [snapback]2001100[/snapback]

I never said we should do more for Iraq.

South Korea, along with Japanese and Chinese were asked by Southeast Asian nations to commit in the anti-piracy operations, but turned the invitation down.

In Iraq, despite having sent over 3000 troops, President Bush 'forgot' to mention South Korean contingent.

For Vietnam, it turned out to be the fact that it was good overall for South Korea to have sent combat troops over, in retrospect. However, the South Korean government was more or less forced to act when US made moves to relocate American forces in Korea to Vietnam. I don't recognize that as Korean inniative.

What I am blaming is that the government rarely promotes itself in the world sphere, yet wishes to be recognized. Providing funds isn't enough. Making a show of providing help is everything.


actually, the indonesians refused to allow the japanese patrol there. they have bad memories of WWII also. And I already mentioned the Chinese opposition to outside forces there.

And why blame SK for Bush's omission?

As for Vietnam, SK negotiated a very beneficial agreement with Johnson. SK could have refused. the US would not have withdrawn all their troops and the NK would not have started another war. a US forced to fight both vietnam and another Korean war would have gone nuclear and Mao and Kim knew that. SK saw it as in their own interest to fight communism which it hated and to strengthen military ties with America. Your arguement that SK was forced to go to vietnam is ridiculous. to argue that korea spent almost ten years and send 100s of thousands of men to vietnam just bc they were "forced" is absurd. again, it was in korea's INTEREST to go as it was in AMERICA'S interest to go.

your last statement is too vague.

also, in your previous post you wrote "There is a REASON why South Korean military commitments are overlooked." how can korea be overlooking its military commitments? Korea's overriding military commitment is to defend the border against NK. Do you realize that NK could anahilate seoul in twenty minutes? they even seem to have nukes now.

I'm sure there are other areas that require korean peace keeping troops but the korean government is NOT overlooking its most important "military commitment" and that is defending against a possible NK attack. toward that end korea has the DRAFT. if you ask me korea is doing more than enought to fight for democracy and freedom in this world. why don't you post on why china continues to give aid to NK?






SantaKlaws
QUOTE(KJlost @ Jun 29 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]2001100[/snapback]

I never said we should do more for Iraq.


We should've done more in Iraq. "President" Roh made half-hearted commitments, so I wasn't too surprised when Bush left Korea out of his speech. Seriously, Arbil. That place is Kurd-controlled territory.

QUOTE
What I am blaming is that the government rarely promotes itself in the world sphere, yet wishes to be recognized. Providing funds isn't enough. Making a show of providing help is everything.


While I do agree that we should make more commitments to the world, we mustn't forget that we have NK right up on our @$$. I'm not really a military expert, but out of common sense, I believe that it's much harder for us to spare troops than say, Japan.
jaesan
Its a very good opportunity for Korea to make new alliances with countries in Europe. Can't really pass up this opportunity.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.