As a child I was a Bond nut. I used to debate with a few friends the relative strengths and weaknesses of actors, dream of gadgets and ladies and fear the villains. I was, like so many other children, touched by 007 (I hasten to point out that it was in a different way from the women touched by James Bond). Though I have grown out of this nerdery, I followed with great interest the debate surrounding the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond. I could see why he was controversial, but I was tired of Bond and his misogynistic attitude and inane comments and his picking on Russia. Truth be told the defining conflict for most of the Bond films, the Cold War, was alien to me since I didn’t live through it. For my generation, I suspect that the defining conflict will be the so called ‘war on terror’. Craig’s Bond and the series as a whole has come to reflect this and as such has retained its relevance to the world.
   
Another Cold War relic is struggling to find a place in the world. NATO, the Alliance founded in 1949 to counteract the rise of the Soviet Union. A 150 page manifesto has been produced by 5 leading international generals (including a British Field Marshal, Lord Inge) which hopes to define the potential threats that NATO could combat in the future, according to the Guardian (22/01/2008 or go here to read the article).
   
The threats identified are, I believe, pertinent. For example there is the danger of religious fanaticism and the globalisation of terrorist organizations, both of which can be pointed to in various areas of  the world. Equally true, but more farsighted, are the fears of strife caused by environmental changes and energy resource security. In this the 5 men have astutely identified potential arenas in which conflict will result.
   
What I struggle with is how NATO can fit into this. The potential areas of conflict are massively removed from the role that NATO held, more accurately suited to a force of peace keepers than a defensive multinational army. The UN must therefore take precedence in these matters. Further one must bear in mind that the forces that NATO employs have been shown to be dangerously unsuited to the conflicts that they describe above. NATO is leading ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in southern Afghanistan which is far from a success.
   
The proposed changes do nothing to remedy this. Instead they hope to give dentures to a blind, aging lion. No longer would all members be allowed opinions in all the military actions. They must participate or be silenced. Nor could a member request that its troops be used in only specific circumstances (as the Germans have done in Afghanistan), they must commit fully. Whilst militarily expedient, this is entirely undemocratic. Worse is the combination of the pre-emptive nuclear strike, without the need for UN authorisation. It is all to easy to see this being employed against Iran or Pakistan, but still proves utterly useless for peacekeeping. Rather it shows that NATO would rather blow a problem away than to engage and attempt to defuse.
   
These proposed “fixes”, specifically the distancing from the UN seem to indicate that NATO is still fighting the Cold War. They do not want Russia (or for that matter China) vetoing a military action. When combined with NATO’s continued recruitment of eastern European and former Soviet nations, the nuclear arsenal at their disposal and the missile screens that America and NATO  have proposed in Europe, a terrifying picture emerges. NATO could be, by fighting a war long finished, provoking a new East-West estrangement or even war in the future.
   
What is really worrying the advocates for NATO is that the role that the alliance was forged for, has been completed successfully; attacking a NATO signatory would be so rife with problems as to be almost unthinkable. The organisation should be content with that and stop interfering outside its area of responsibility. As I out grew my Bond obsession, so the World may ready to put aside NATO and its antiquated policies.