PDA

View Full Version : Now NATO's getting torn apart too!


wonderfly
02-10-2003, 04:00 PM
Once again, I'm bringing an article fresh off the press that I find interesting, (or in this case, troubling) to Toonzone, so people that are interested can see what new problems are going on in the world. And this one's a doozy: apparently the U.N. isn't the only world organization being split on the Iraq thing. :(


MSNBC NEWS SERVICES

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Feb. 10 — An emergency NATO meeting called after France, Germany and Belgium blocked a U.S. request to start planning Turkey’s defense in the event of war in Iraq ended Monday with no breakthrough, diplomats said. The talks, expected to continue Tuesday, were convened after Turkey invoked NATO’s mutual defense treaty — the first time a nation has done so in the alliance’s 53-year history.

U.S. SECRETARY of State Colin Powell told reporters Monday in Washington that NATO should make sure that Turkey “is not put at any risk.”
“I hope that NATO will now realize that they have an obligation to assist a NATO member,” he added.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in separate remarks, said that “it’s unfortunate that they are in stark disagreement with the rest of their NATO allies.”
“There are 19 countries in NATO, so it’s 16-3,” he said. “I think it’s a mistake, and what we have to do for the United States is make sure that that planning does go forward, preferably within NATO but if not, bilaterally or multiple bilaterals.”
Asked if the move by the three countries would delay a possible attack, Rumsfeld said: “No, because the planning’s going to go forward outside of NATO if necessary.”
At NATO headquarters in Brussels, Secretary General Lord Robertson called the atmosphere “very heated.”
“I am not seeking today to minimize the seriousness of the situation. It is serious,” he said during a break in the meeting of alliance ambassadors.
NATO’s mutual defense treaty, known as Article 4, declares NATO members will consult when “in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”
But early Monday, France, Germany and Belgium blocked the automatic start of NATO procedures for military planning to protect Turkey, arguing it would force the crisis into a “logic of war” when diplomatic alternatives still stood a chance of success.
“It would signify that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone,” Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said.

U.S.: ‘CRISIS OF CREDIBILITY’

The move was a blow to the United States, which had won the support of 16 of the 19 NATO allies during more than three weeks of intensive lobbying. All NATO decisions require unanimous support from the allies.
“This is a most unfortunate decision,” said the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicolas Burns. “Because of their actions, NATO is now facing a crisis of credibility.”
Still, Robertson sought to play down the divisions. “What is important, is that we arrive at a consensus and I’m confident we will,” he said.
Turkey’s foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, also sought to calm tempers. “There was no veto on defending Turkey,” Yakis told reporters in Ankara. “There is disagreement over the timing” but not on the principle of defending Turkey, he said. “These problems can be overcome.”
He did not say whether Turkey would directly ask NATO to start contingency planning to defend Turkey against an attack.

JUST TIMING ISSUE?
Diplomats said they expected France and the other holdouts to drop their objections to the military planning when faced with a direct request from the Turks under the treaty.

“I trust the alliance will stick together and we will help Turkey,” Norwegian Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold said Sunday. “I have a strong belief in common sense.”
Over the weekend, Rumsfeld warned that continued delays in responding to Turkey’s request were “inexcusable” and risked undermining the credibility of the alliance.
He intensified his criticism in an interview Sunday in Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper. “Shameful, for me it’s truly shameful,” Rumsfeld was quoted as saying. “Turkey is an ally. An ally that is risking everything. ... How can you refuse it help?”



FRANCE VOWS TO BE THERE

In France, officials stood by their position but said they would help the Turks if they judged it necessary.
“If Turkey was really under threat, France would be one of the first at its side,” French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told reporters in Munich. “Today, we don’t feel that threat is there.”
As well as trans-Atlantic differences, the deadlock highlighted deep divisions among European allies. The majority, led by Britain, Spain and Italy, is backing the tough line against Iraq taken by the United States and has been opposed by France and Germany.
NATO’s military commanders say military planning to help Turkey can be wrapped up within a few days once they get the go-ahead, but actual deployment of the NATO units will need further approval from the 19 allies.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Joe Wagner
02-10-2003, 04:27 PM
This isn't the first time that NATO has wound up split over the impending war with Iraq. Last week eight NATO members signed a letter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A615-2003Jan30.html) pledging their support for the US in this time of crisis, much to the chagrin of France and Germany.

What makes this decision worse though is that by constantly opposing the war on Iraq, Germany, France and Belgium are leaving their Turkish ally in a very dangerous situation. If a war is begins Turkey may not be able to defend itself effectively from Saddam Hussein and could lose many of their citizens in the process when these weapons are allowed to detonate in areas of high population. The missile batteries that they are requesting would be used to defend against these types of attacks. Perhaps even more interesting though is the fact that Germany has already shipped Patriot batteries to Israel for this same type of defense (as evidenced by the Jerusalem Post here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1044851303257)). If they were truly opposed to allowing their batteries into the conflict they would never have signed an agreement to send these batteries to this region.

The JPost article is as follows:

Two Patriot missile batteries shipped from Germany arrived in Israel today, officials said.

An agreement for procurement of the interceptor missiles was signed in mid-January after months of negotiations.

The missiles are expected to be deployed for defense against a possible attack by Iraq if the US goes ahead with plans to wage war on Baghdad.

Germany agreed to lend Israel the missiles for two years, ultimately consenting to Israel's request for the surplus missiles because they consider the Patriot solely a defensive weapon.

The batteries are to be manned by IAF servicemen trained in Germany. According to reports, the German Patriots work on parameters almost identical to the ones currently in service across Israel.

The missiles that Israel is to receive from Germany, as well as the ones currently in service here, are more advanced versions than
those used with limited success to combat incoming Scuds in the 1991 Gulf War.

As with the American Patriot missiles, the German Patriots will be used as a fail-safe measure should Israel's Arrow missiles, which have a range twice as great, fail to hit their targets.


-Joe!

wonderfly
02-10-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Joe Wagner
This isn't the first time that NATO has wound up split over the impending war with Iraq. Last week eight NATO members signed a letter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A615-2003Jan30.html) pledging their support for the US in this time of crisis, much to the chagrin of France and Germany.



-Joe!

Joe,

Is this the letter I read about that appeared in the Washington Post, (or one of those more conservative national newspapers)? I read an article a few days ago that talked about wether the newspaper that published that story crossed the line in journalistic integrity. They article said that the Washington Post had created the story by asking the Eight countries to sign a paper saying they supported the U.S., to show that not all of Europe was opposed to the U.S.

In other words: it was an editorial disguised as news. I find that laughable though, to an extent, because it is the liberal news which always likes to overplay it's coverage of antiwar protests, (which aren't as numerous as some in the media would have us believe). I think a columnist put it correctly when they said that some in the media are striving way too hard to find an updated version of the peace rallies of the 1960's.

Back on track: the reason I was concerned about this article is because I always think of NATO as speaking with one voice. The European nations have been striving these last few years to become, for lack of a better word: The United States of Europe. And scene's like the ones mentioned in the article seem to portray that still, after all these years, Europe can't seem to agree on anything. :(

randomguy
02-10-2003, 07:40 PM
THIS pisses me off. If Germany, France, and Belgium don't agree to go to war, than I respect that. But to not help an ally in the case that it need assistance with self-defense is silly and pointless.

Kuja's Light
02-10-2003, 08:22 PM
That's ironic. All three countries are my nationalitys.

Joe Wagner
02-11-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by wonderfly
Joe,

Is this the letter I read about that appeared in the Washington Post, (or one of those more conservative national newspapers)? I read an article a few days ago that talked about wether the newspaper that published that story crossed the line in journalistic integrity. They article said that the Washington Post had created the story by asking the Eight countries to sign a paper saying they supported the U.S., to show that not all of Europe was opposed to the U.S.

In other words: it was an editorial disguised as news. I find that laughable though, to an extent, because it is the liberal news which always likes to overplay it's coverage of antiwar protests, (which aren't as numerous as some in the media would have us believe). I think a columnist put it correctly when they said that some in the media are striving way too hard to find an updated version of the peace rallies of the 1960's.

Back on track: the reason I was concerned about this article is because I always think of NATO as speaking with one voice. The European nations have been striving these last few years to become, for lack of a better word: The United States of Europe. And scene's like the ones mentioned in the article seem to portray that still, after all these years, Europe can't seem to agree on anything. :(

I don't believe so because this was in regards to a letter that these countries created and signed to show their support for the US (I haven't heard anything about the Washington Post or any other organization doing what you described - if possible could you post a link to that story?).

This letter was not only written by the eight signatories but was never offered to the German or French diplomats - it is believed to make an example of them for their failure to support the rest of NATO on Iraq. This was very interesting because it marked the first time that such strong criticism was done in such a way.

-Joe!

wonderfly
02-11-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Joe Wagner
I don't believe so because this was in regards to a letter that these countries created and signed to show their support for the US (I haven't heard anything about the Washington Post or any other organization doing what you described - if possible could you post a link to that story?).

This letter was not only written by the eight signatories but was never offered to the German or French diplomats - it is believed to make an example of them for their failure to support the rest of NATO on Iraq. This was very interesting because it marked the first time that such strong criticism was done in such a way.

-Joe!

I'm sorry, but now I can't find that article anywhere, not in my stack of newspapers, (it probably got pitched) or on the internet. I'm pretty sure it wasn't an editorial condenming it...it was a news article discussing conservative bias on the part of, (I believe) the Washington Post. At least as far as these eight European countries are concerned.

Anyone else read this by chance?