Everything a minister needs to know about Cuba, NATO and Pamela Anderson - Macleans.ca
 

Everything a minister needs to know about Cuba, NATO and Pamela Anderson


 

Still more on what precisely was in Maxime Bernier’s misplaced binder.

Given the importance of the topic during the Bucharest summit, it should come as no surprise that many of the briefing notes dealt with extending membership to Ukraine, Georgia, Croatia, Albania, Macedonia and even Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The government’s strong support for Ukrainian membership is reiterated several times…

Canadian views on Georgia’s hopes to join the alliance, however, were markedly less effusive. While generally supportive, and noting high public support within Georgia for NATO accession, the briefing notes raised some concerns.

Sorry, Georgia.


 

Everything a minister needs to know about Cuba, NATO and Pamela Anderson

  1. Georgia shouldn't join the alliance. It's far too risky.

    If Georgia joined, what would happen if Georgia and Russia got caught up in another armed conflict in the "occupied territory" of South Ossetia? Will NATO send troops into the region to defend the Georgians and fight the Russkies?

  2. Georgia shouldn't join the alliance. It's far too risky.

    If Georgia joined, what would happen if Georgia and Russia got caught up in another armed conflict in the "occupied territory" of South Ossetia? Would NATO send troops into the region to defend the Georgians and fight the Russkies?

    • agreed. Though, I feel for the Georgians an the fact that they want to get out from under the thumb of Russia. These interface countries could become a problem

      • It is now generally accepted that the conflict was provoked by the Georgians though at least part of the responsibility probably lies with the Bush administration who led them to believe that the US would be more supportive than it could actually be. In any case I certainly am not prepared to go to war with Russia in order to further Georgian (or for that matter Ukrainian) interests. There are no black and white situations in that part of the world only shades of gray. If Ukraine was a Nato member would we be obliged to go to war to prevent the Crimeans (majority Russian province which has only been part of Ukraine for 50 years) from seceeding and becoming part of the Russian Federation? I think the expansion of Nato engineered by Bush and his crowd was sheer idiocy and the fact that our government approved of it does them no credit.

    • Of course, from Georgia's perspective that is precisely why they need to join NATO, to force Russia to think twice about invading again (actually, are there still Russian troops in South Ossetia? I know they were supposed to leave a long time ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're still there). I'm torn on this one, frankly. On the one hand, I don't want to needlessly upset the Russians. On the other hand, while we're worried about upsetting them by allowing a sovereign country to join a voluntary military alliance, they seem to have little compunction about upsetting us by invading a neighbouring country with tanks!

      On a side note, am I correct that while public sentiment for joining NATO is high in Georgia, that it's actually low in Ukraine? I know the government of Ukraine wants to join, but does anyone know what public opinion polls say?

    • I agree that Georgia should not currently be admitted to NATO, but ought the criterion to be how risky it is? NATO was formed to protect weak nations from aggression.

      Surely the primary criteria for membership should be (a) whether they want to, and (b) whether they need the protection.

    • I might agree that Georgia should not currently be admitted to NATO, but ought the criterion to be how risky it is? NATO was formed to protect weak nations from aggression.

      Surely the primary criteria for membership should be (a) whether they want to, and (b) whether they need the protection.

      • There is another question to consider as well. Can NATO actually provide protection?

        • That's a good point.

          • so, I suppose that the question is, do we have to chnage the model that we are following. have we moved on from the post WW2 stance to a different one? and what is it?

    • I know it's WAY more complicated than this, but I just thought of this issue in a way that I thought was kind of interesting.

      In the case of Georgia, we're actually worried about allowing a country to join an alliance meant, to protect them from invasion by a foreign power, because we're concerned about upsetting the foreign power most likely to invade them! It's kinda weird, eh?

      It's like not letting your neighbour who's house has recently been broken into join your neighbourhood watch group because you don't want to risk offending the burglars.

      Well, it'd be like that if the burglars had ICBMs and dozens of armoured divisions.

  3. Georgia shouldn't join the alliance. It's far to risky.

    If Georgia joined, what would happen if Georgia and Russia get caught up in another armed conflict in the "occupied territory" of South Ossetia? Will NATO send troops into the region to defend the Georgians and fight the Russkies?

  4. (RIA-Novosti, April 4) Last week, during the NATO summit in Bucharest, Putin declared that unlike the time of the Cold War there were no ideological divides in Europe, that existing misunderstandings were marginal and that everything was negotiable. This was a big step forward in tone and spirit. Only recently Russian generals threatened to aim nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic if they allowed U.S. MD installations on their territories, while Putin himself threatened less than two months ago to aim nukes at Ukraine, if it joined NATO (RIA-Novosti, February 12).
    By JAMES GERSTENZANG, Los Angeles Times | April 7, 2008 Their difference about the weapon, Mr. Putin said, "is not about language; this is not about diplomatic phrasing or wording. This is about the substance of the issue."

    Glad according to all Canadian news our briefing papers skipped this issue .

  5. Interesting that a serious discussion of foreign affairs should break out here when that was the furthest thing from the minister's mind. Maybe parliamentary/electoral reform should include the option of election of representatives for online communities. Might pick up the level of debate overall.