NATO’s Future – USA Gov Policy

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in the just-released annual report of the alliance, addresses the role and need for a strong trans-Atlantic bond. These are his remarks.

In 2020, the Alliance – like the rest of the world – was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only did the virus threaten our societies and economies, it also magnified existing security trends and tensions. But it did not prevent NATO from doing its job: our ability to defend the Euro-Atlantic area remains undiminished, and throughout the year, the Alliance worked to help save lives and keep our people safe.

Across NATO, almost half a million troops supported the civilian response to the pandemic. We delivered much-needed medical equipment and supplies, transported patients and medical personnel, secured borders and built field hospitals to treat many thousands of patients. We established a pandemic response plan, a stockpile of medical supplies and a trust fund for the purchase of urgently needed items. Ventilators and other equipment from the stockpile have been delivered to Allies and partners. Throughout the year, potential adversaries have been seeking to exploit the crisis to destabilise our societies and undermine our democracies. Based on polls commissioned by NATO in 2020, half the population of Allied countries thought security threats to their nation had increased due to the pandemic.

Against this background, NATO’s priority has been to make sure the health crisis did not become a security crisis. We continued to deter aggression, to defend our Allies, and to project stability beyond Alliance borders, keeping our forces safe, vigilant and ready. We sustained our missions and deployments – from the battlegroups in the east of the Alliance, to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. And we continued to cooperate with a network of partner countries and international organisations to tackle common security challenges. At the same time, we are working to prepare the Alliance for the future.

We launched the NATO 2030 initiative, aimed at making our strong Alliance even stronger in an unpredictable world. One thing is certain: we can only keep our nations safe if North America and Europe work together, in strategic solidarity. The level of support for the transatlantic bond remains high, with 79 per cent of citizens believing that the collaboration between North America and Europe on safety and security matters is important. A strong transatlantic bond is the cornerstone of our security and the only way to tackle great challenges, including Russia’s aggressive actions, international terrorism, more complex cyber attacks, the rise of China, disruptive technologies and the security implications of climate change.

These challenges are too big for any country or continent to tackle alone. Not Europe alone, and not North America alone – but Europe and North America together. That is why at the NATO Summit later this year, we will set an ambitious and forward-looking transatlantic agenda to future-proof our Alliance.

It is often a frequent simple fact that people who want to be healthy need to eat healthy; but promises of more attractive skin, taut abs and increased don’t always measure up to the allure of a steaming-hot plate of Buffalo wings and a draft Pilsner. levitra shop uk http://amerikabulteni.com/page/133/ cheap viagra canadian Online pharmacy has a wide range of medicines based on allergies, Alzheimer, antibiotics, antifugal,anxiety,cancer,hairloss,high blood pressure, insomnia, diabetes skin care and much more of that. The experts use their hands to treat the ailment muscle, joint or any nerve discount viagra pain. sildenafil online without prescription Extremely minor proportions are additionally exuded by the adrenal glands.

First, we must reinforce the unity between Europe and North America, which derives from our promise to defend each other. Therefore, we must strengthen our commitment to our collective defence and fund more of deterrence and defence on NATO territory together. We must also strengthen our political unity, by committing to consult on all issues that affect our security, using NATO as the unique platform that brings Europe and North America together every day. To chart a common course going forward and reaffirm the fundamentals of our Alliance, we should also agree to update NATO’s Strategic Concept.

Second, we must broaden our approach to security. To keep our people safe, we need not only strong militaries, but also strong societies. So we need a more integrated approach to resilience, with concrete targets on issues such as critical infrastructure and communications, including 5G and undersea cables. We also need to maintain our technological edge, to remain competitive in a more competitive world. Lastly, we must protect the international rules-based order, which is being challenged by authoritarian powers. The rise of China is a defining issue, with potential consequences for our security, prosperity and way of life. That is why we should deepen our relationships with close partners like Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and reach out to other like-minded nations around the world.

Protecting the rules-based order starts with protecting our values at home. So we must strengthen our democracies, bolster our institutions and recommit to our values.

We have a unique opportunity to open a new chapter in transatlantic relations. And we all have a responsibility to seize it.

Photo: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/