The recent NATO summit finds its members at odds over the alliance’s future course 　　
　　In Latvia’s capital of Riga on November 28 and 29, the leaders of 26 NATO member states met to address a number of hotly contested issues, ranging from collective defense to Afghanistan and antiterrorism to developing a more globally influential alliance. Yet, for all the wide-ranging discussions, little substantial progress was made.
　　“The summit did not have the character of a major breakthrough,” Polish President Lech Kaczynski was quoted by the Associated Press as saying. “Not all countries showed the same level of determination.”
　　As NATO seeks to become a body of global reach to enhance its relevance in today’s world, its members are finding themselves embroiled in disputes over the future of this 57-year-old military alliance, according to Chinese analysts.
　　The Riga summit adopted the Comprehensive Political Guidance, which charts NATO’s future course. The document defines terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction as the probable principal threats to the alliance in the next 10 to 15 years.
　　It also underlines the need to improve NATO’s cooperation with its partners, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations.
　　It was announced that a new 25,000-member rapid-response force was ready for action as “the spearhead of a modernized NATO military.” With full capability, the force can be dispatched to any part of the globe within five days.
　　In a declaration issued during the summit, leaders welcomed the efforts of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, formal aspirant countries recognized by NATO, to prepare themselves for the responsibilities and obligations of membership.
　　The alliance also invited three other Balkan states-Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia-to join the Partnership for Peace program and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The two mechanisms are designed to foster the alliance’s relations with non-NATO countries in the Euro-Atlantic area.
　　The U.S. factor
　　It was reported that U.S. President George W. Bush tried to introduce a Global Partnership initiative to NATO so that some Asian and northern European nations, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Sweden and Finland, would have a closer relationship with the alliance. However, it seemed that Bush failed to put the idea across. Neither the initiative nor any of these countries were mentioned in the declaration, something that experts say highlighted the divergence of views among NATO members.
　　Wang Baofu, Deputy Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at China’s National Defense University, analyzed the two-pronged train of thought underlying the U.S.-proposed Global Partnership. From a short-term perspective, Bush made the proposal in light of the difficulties his administration has confronted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that it is unable to clear up these problems on its own, the United States needs the support of its allies around the world.
　　At the same time, it has taken into account the security threats in other parts of the world over the long haul. If it can expand its alliance globally, the United States will be in a more advantageous position to control the situation in every region.
　　Of course, not all NATO members share the U.S. vision. French Minister of Defense Michele Alliot-Marie voiced concern in a recent op-ed piece in The Washington Times. “The development of a global partnership could in fact not only dilute the natural solidarity between Europeans and North Americans in a vague ensemble, but also, and especially, send a bad political message: that of a campaign launched by the West against those who don’t share their ideas,” she wrote.
　　Wang acknowledged the stabilizing role NATO is playing in Central Asia, especially in Afghanistan. He said had it not been for the NATO military presence, the situation in the region would have been even more hostile. However, he pointed out that the United States was trying to expand NATO on the basis of “common values.” This kind of expansion, which lays too much emphasis on ideology, would have negative effects, the expert warned.
　　He noted that NATO has a record of dealing with security issues without the authorization of the United Nations since the end of the Cold War. In the context of globalization, seeking to address international security issues by strengthening a military alliance is a problematic approach in itself, he stressed. Instead, he suggested that these issues should be resolved through the cooperation of all countries within the framework of the UN.
　　He suggested that the stronger nations would have a bigger say in a military alliance. He noted that the organization has largely followed the direction set by the United States over the past years despite the prominent disputes among its members. Given this, he predicted that NATO would continue to expand, and Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Balkan region would sooner or later come under the organization.
　　Feng Zhongping, Director of the Institute of European Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said although it had frictions with other NATO members such as France and Germany, the United States was conscious of its leading role in the alliance. He continued that as the organization generally follows the principle of consensus, the United States had to persuade other members to achieve its goals.
　　Of course, not all of its goals can be achieved, he said, but many of them can. Given the push of the United States, NATO is likely to admit more members and boost its global influence, Feng said.
　　

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Global Alliance Ａ　Ｇｌｏｂａｌ�。粒欤欤椋幔睿悖澹� global view 作文 distracting