Can someone please explain to me the difference between NATO and the UN security force? Reason I ask is because some folks are calling for the UN to take over Iraq, allowing the US to go home. Some are talking about NATO (like John Edwards) taking over instead. The only impression I get is that the UN Security Force is more of a mediating body, while NATO is all about firepower, to put it simply.
I’m far from an expert on either body (and this is more of a General Question than a debate), but I’m pretty the two organizations have no official connection.
NATO is a military organization that grew out of the cold war. It was originally an argument that if the communist countries (or anyone else) attacked these countries, the others would rush to their aid. A list of these countries can be found here – there are only 19 of them. It still gets involved in military conflicts, like the war in Kosovo.
The United Nations is a diplomatic body made up of 191 nations. It’s mission is to promote human rights, peace, and access to medicine. In some situations, the UN can raise a military force for peacekeeping – essentially using a military to seperate two warring sides and keep the peace. Member countries (and the majority of the world’s countries are members) all foot some of the bill for the peacekeeping operations.
All of the NATO countries are members of of the UN, but most UN members are not members of NATO. The two organizations are distinct.
Hamish is right.
I’d add this; NATO is a military alliance, and the (defensive) use of force is what it’s all about. The UN is primarily a diplomatic and legal body, and the use of force is a very small part of its activities. There is no standing “UN Security Force”; when there is a consensus in the organisation that force must be used to acheive some diplomatic or legal objective, a special force has to be authorised and assembled for the purpose.
It’s theoretically possible that the UN could take over the administration of Iraq without providing a security force - the US could continue to to that, or NATO could. In practice that’s very unlikely, I would have thought. A UN security force would have to be assembled for the operation. Again, in theory, the US might contribute troops to such a force but again, in practice, I would have thought that unlikely. The primary attraction for the US of handing over to a UN administration is that it would allow earlier disengagement of US troops.
Other than our allies already in country, there is no security force from any organization that is prepared to assume security duties in Iraq. Some nations that opposed the war are prepared to do business in Iraq. They would like to enforce the contracts they signed with Saddam. That’s not a security force.
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in response to the Iron Curtain coming down around Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. NATO, since the fall of the Soviet Union, has expanded to include some former Warsaw Pact nations. The Warsaw Pact was the non-voluntary alliance formed between the Stalinist USSR and their client states – read, subjects.
If the “big one” – WWIII – were to happen during the Cold War it was likely to be fought, first, between the fully armored and mobile “Shock Army” of the Warsaw Pact, and the poor tripwire soldiers in Germany that had about 30 seconds to live. They were NATO. It would have gotten nasty and violent after that.
The UN, of course – like NATO – is just composed of member states. If the member states don’t act, the organization doesn’t act.
Here is what NATO thought it was facing in 1987 It would have been nice to be blissfully ignorant of the situation back then. Communism was “no threat” to us, I’ve heard.
Everyone should know about Third Shock Army
The UN and NATO, though formed around the same time period, resulted from different wars. The UN was created after WWII, in order to improve on the impotent League of Nations. Some might argue that the UN could use some erectile disfunction products also. Anyway…
NATO was created after the start of the Cold War. Totally different missions, yes. However, both organizations have provisions for the use of force. In practical terms, it’s US troops either way.
Not only US troops… Afghanistan is full of Canadian, German and other NATO troops…
True dat, Rashak. I was not trying to downplay the significance of having allies. The opposite is true. When it comes to longterm peacekeeping and nation-building a technological cutting edge military is less important than having the right toys and stuff to give away.
Furthermore, it’s better to get the troops that did the fighting out to avoid reprisals out of the emotions that develop in every war.
Also, I spell by sound apparently. The up side: I type very fast.
I’m not as down on the UN or NATO as I sound. It’s hard to write on a topic – unless you are prepared to go essay length.