Is NATO dead?

[chaim]

Is NATO dead? A NATO nation is (Turkey) is invoking Article 4 (the clause in the alliance that a nation invokes when it is asking the others for help- it binds the member nations to "emergency consultations" when the invoking nation is under threat) and for political reasons France, Germany and Belgium are balking. Due to concerns of a war with Iraq causing Iraq to lash out at its neighbors (esp. if they help the US, but really whether they do or not), Turkey is asking for aid- Patriot missle batteries, planning for if/how to respond to an Iraqi missle attack on Turkey, AWACs, anti-biolocial warfare teams and anti-chemical warfare teams. They aren't talking about offensive forces, they are asking for planning and the means for a purely defensive response.

No one doubts whether Hussein will lash out at neighbors should the US attack Iraq. Turkey is one of his neighbors, and at highest risk being a close ally to the US (thus, at high risk whether they are directly involved or not), and they are a member of NATO. They are in danger of attack. Whether these 3 (of 19) NATO countries agree w/ a US attack of Iraq or not it is unpardonable that they are holding Turkey hostage to put pressure on the US. Turkey asking for defensive measures is certainly not too much to ask- it is the least they should expect.

If NATO can't or won't help it is irrelevant.

Can these 3 nations be kicked out?

I'm especially mad at Germany. Without NATO it would have been united w/ East Germany, under the USSR's thumb, decades before the end of the Cold War. Now after benefiting from the alliance far more than they gave, they wish to deprive another member (one that pulled its weight in the alliance for decades, including contributing to the defense of Germany) of the minimum that it needs in the current climate! I'd say where they should go but I'm a religious man and this is a family forum.

 

[chaim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030210/ap_on_re_eu/nato_iraq_16

Turkey Wants Talks on Stalled NATO Plan
1 hour, 34 minutes ago

By PAUL AMES, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Turkey requested an emergency NATO (news - web sites) meeting Monday after France, Germany and Belgium blocked the start of military planning to protect Turkey against the threat of an Iraqi missile attack.

It marked the first time in NATO's 53-year history that a nation formally invoked article 4 of the founding mutual defense treaty, and was another indication of deepening divisions in the alliance over the Iraq crisis.

Article 4 binds the 19 allies to talks when one perceives a threat to its "territorial integrity, political independence or security."

Diplomats said failure to respond to a request for help under the treaty would strike a blow to NATO's core commitment for all allies to rally to the defense of any one of them threatened with attack.

"I am not seeking today to minimize the seriousness of the situation. It is serious," said NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson during a break in the meeting of alliance ambassadors, where he called the atmosphere "very heated."

Just an hour before the order to start the military planning was scheduled to be given Monday morning, France, Germany and Belgium intervened saying it risked undermining efforts to end the Iraq crisis peacefully.

For over three weeks, the three have successfully vetoed preparations to send to Turkey AWACS early warning planes, Patriot missile interceptor batteries and units specialized in counter germ warfare and anti-poison gas operations.

"It would signify that we have already entered into the logic of war, that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone," Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said.

The United States — which has lobbied hard for the alliance to start the military planning, backed by 16 of the 19 NATO allies — denounced the three nations' move.

"This is a most unfortunate decision," said U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns. "Because of their actions, NATO is now facing a crisis of credibility."

Officials had 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.

However, a senior NATO diplomat said the trio had declined to reveal their intentions during the morning meeting.

Diplomats at NATO headquarters were surprised that Germany backed the veto, after Defense Minister Peter Struck hinted at the weekend that Berlin might be willing to lift its objections.

The country at the heart of the dispute sought to soothe tempers.

"They did not veto the protection of Turkey," Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said in Ankara. "These countries have problems with the timing," he said, adding that the "problem can be overcome because there is no disagreement on principle."

The damage to alliance unity however was unavoidable.

At a stormy weekend meeting in Munich, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned continued delays in responding to Turkey's request were "inexcusable" and risked undermining the alliance's credibility.

Rumsfeld intensified his criticism in an interview Sunday with Italy's La Republica 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?"

NATO's military commanders say planning for the limited support for Turkey can be wrapped up within a few days once they get the go-ahead, but actual deployment of NATO units will need further approval from the 19 allies.

All NATO decisions require unanimous support from the allies.

Turkey, the only NATO member that borders Iraq, is expected to be a base for U.S. troops opening up a northern front in Iraq should war break out.

The predominantly Muslim country was disappointed in December not get a firm date to start negotiations to join the European Union (news - web sites), which includes France, Germany and Belgium, as well as nations such as Britain, Spain and Italy which have strongly supported the call for NATO to start military planning. Turkish officials have not linked the two issues.

The EU has said it will start membership negotiations with Turkey "without delay" if it meets the bloc's standards of human rights and democracy in December 2004.

 

[chaim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030210/ts_nm/iraq_nato_usa_dc_1

U.S. Envoy Says NATO Faces 'Crisis of Credibility'
Mon Feb 10, 7:13 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The U.S. envoy to NATO (news - web sites) said on Monday the alliance was facing a "crisis of credibility" after France, Germany and Belgium blocked plans to help defend Turkey against a possible Iraqi attack in the event of a war.

"This is a most unfortunate decision by three allies to prevent NATO from assisting the legitimate defense needs of Turkey," U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns told reporters.

"Because of their actions, NATO is now facing a crisis of credibility," he said.

Earlier, Turkey responded to the veto from the three allies by formally seeking consultations under Article 4 of the NATO treaty for defense of its territory in the event of a U.S.-led war in Iraq.

France, Belgium and Germany say deploying AWACS surveillance planes, Patriot missiles and anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare teams to Turkey at this time would send a signal that diplomatic efforts to avert a war in Iraq had failed.

 

[chaim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030210/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq&cid=542&ncid=1480

Powell Presses NATO to Protect Turkey
36 minutes ago Add White House

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a major clash with key U.S. allies over a possible war against Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that NATO has a legal obligation to assist Turkey when it asks for help.

The alliance should make sure that Turkey "is not put at any risk," Powell said in response to a move by France, Germany and Belgium to block NATO efforts to begin planning for possible Iraqi attacks against Turkey.

Powell, in brief remarks to reporters after a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, said: "I hope that NATO will now realize that they have an obligation to assist a NATO member."

Powell cited Article 4 of NATO's mutual defense treaty, which provides for all members of the military alliance to consult when a member is threatened.

Turkey has requested emergency consultations under the treaty, the first time a North Atlantic Treaty Organization nation has done that in the alliance"s 53-history.

The dispute deepens divisions in NATO over Iraq. Germany and France have mounted a campaign in the U.N. Security Council to deter the United States and Britain from using force to disarm President Saddam Hussein.

President Bush, who was to see close ally Howard later Monday, has said the United States would act without council approval to disarm Iraq if the council did not support the use of force.

Bush says the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks redefined America's approach to international affairs and increased the urgency of dealing with growing threats abroad.

Powell meanwhile warned that if Saddam did not begin cooperating fully and quickly with U.N. weapons inspectors, the White House will seek a U.N. resolution authorizing a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Speaking Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Powell said that if the U.N. inspectors' report, which is due Friday, shows Iraq is still not cooperating, "then the Security Council will have to sit in session immediately and determine what should happen next" and "start considering a resolution that says Iraq is in material breach and it is time for serious consequences to follow."

The president, at a policy conference of Republican members of Congress at a West Virginia resort Sunday, explained his reasoning for expanding the war on terrorism to Iraq.

"Prior to September the 11th, there was apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror," he said. There were concerns about terrorists in Iraq, but no fear about a threat to the American homeland. "... We were confident that two oceans could protect us from harm."

But, Bush added, "the world changed on September the 11th."

"Obviously, it changed for thousands of people's lives for whom we still mourn. But it changed for America, and it's very important that the American people understand the change. We are now a battleground. We are vulnerable."

That, he said, is the reason "we cannot ignore gathering threats across the ocean."

"It used to be that we could pick or choose whether or not we would become involved," the president said, but the direct potential of an attack on the United States has changed that philosophy.

Bush spoke as chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in Baghdad that he saw a beginning of Iraq's understanding that it must seriously observe demands for disarmament. U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he expected the Security Council to give the inspectors more time "as long as we are registering good progress."

Asked later about Blix's statement, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer noted that Bush has said that "given the fact that Saddam Hussein is not disarming, time is running out."

Blix and ElBaradei are to make their next report to the U.N. Security Council on Friday.

Earlier Sunday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice web dismissed movement toward compliance by Iraq as another attempt at "cheat and retreat."

"We have seen this game with Iraq many times before, throughout the '90s," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Powell said a reported French-German proposal to increase the number of weapons inspectors in Iraq in hopes of averting U.S. military action is "a diversion, not a solution" to disarming Saddam.

"The issue is not more inspectors. The issue is compliance on the part of Saddam Hussein," he added.

The plan would call for the deployment of thousands of U.N. soldiers, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, was more receptive to the reported plan.

He told "Fox News Sunday" that "it seems to me we ought to be welcoming efforts to forestall war, even if we disagree with those efforts after we read them. We should not treat the U.N. Security Council as some kind of a stumbling block."

 

[Chaz]

Sounds like another infection of "Eurodisease." It seems to affect short-term memory.

The time for talking is over. All we (USA) are doing is enforcing the UN resolutions of the past and present yet we are made to be the bad guy's. In my opinion it's the UN that has no crediblility for allowing the situation to continue as long as it has. If France, Germany, and Belgium dont like it they can suck lemons.

 

[Leatherneck]

This Is Pretty Serious

and doesn't bode well for NATO. The ingrates in Belgium, France and Germany may well precipitate the dissolution of NATO. Personally, I wouldn't miss any of them.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Hutch]

...and the white horse they road in on!

Dissolve NATO, and form a new alliance of those willing to actually accept the burden of alliance. I also sincerely hope that the UN is sent the way of the League of Nations by this latest travesty. I distrust, to some degree, any government. I sure as.. whatever... distrust any supra-national, non-elected organization, completely. I'd have 'em pack their other shirt, and all their comic books, and move out of NYC. Turn that building into a SuperWalMart or something else that's productive.

When Burkina Faso and Papua New Guinea can form an aerospace consortium to rival Lockheed Martin, I'll reconsider.

 

[Dave R]

What Hutch said.

If NATO cannot keep its word to its members (i.e. Turkey), then it has lost its credibility as an organization.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

I won't miss the UN when we finally acknowledge that it has made itself irrelevant, but I'll miss NATO, little bullets and all.

Steve

 

[bad_dad_brad]

France and Germany fear U.S. and British hegemony over the world's oil. Who knows what the Belgians think (and who cares). Russia fears the same thing.

NATO just admitted a bunch of very grateful Eastern and Baltic European states who are pretty much backing us.

There will come a time, when the French and Germans have to face up to the fact that they are either with us or against us. By the way the French are only cooperative military NATO members and are not full members. We might need the Germans but we do not need the French.

Imagine if the Eifel Tower or the Brandenburg Gate were destroyed by radical muslim terrorists. I wonder what they would think then?

Unfortunately, France is quickly becoming a country with a strong islamic minority (that Algerian thing) and Germany, well, they still have an inferiority complex after getting beat in two world wars (which they started).

 

[Wildalaska]

Do you think the "non aryan" nature of the Turk has something to do with Der Vaterland's attitude?

WilddissolveNatoAlaska

 

[twoblink]

you mean League of Nations err... NATO?

they aren't dead, just insignificant..

 

[Gary H]

NATO is an organization that has been in search of a purpose. It is obvious that they have yet to find one.

 

[T.Stahl]

Do you think the "non aryan" nature of the Turk has something to do with Der Vaterland's attitude?

No, it has something to do with the narrow-mindedness of a chancellor who will go down in history as the most unpopular chancellor our Federal Republic had so far.

 

[whoami]

There was a commentary on MSNBC about this. Quite interesting...the author laid forth (and yeah, I do mean laid)
the claim that France, Germany, and Belgium are the one's who are being faithful to the NATO charter, and that the US is both violating the charter and threatening the integrity of the organization itself.

Makes me wonder.......is the part of GW's plan? We fracture the UN and then NATO to the point of...well...pointlessness. Wouldn't that be two big steps on the road to a more isolationist foreign policy?

 

[chaim]

OK, here is my question. It is clear that Germany, Beligium and France aren't reliable allies. France actually opposes us and has competing interests much of the time (and I'm not just thinking Iraq here) so I'm not really sure that they can accurately called an ally anymore anyway. Most of the other 16 members of NATO stick together, are willing to support or at least work with the US and don't go out of their way to oppose us. What can be done?

Is there a mechanism in place to kick nations out of the alliance? I know there is a mechanism to withdraw without dissolving the alliance as shown when France (as someone already mentioned) withdrew from the military wing of NATO. Incidentally, I still don't get how that was allowed to happen. How can a nation withdraw from the military wing of a mutual defense/military alliance and still be allowed to be a member of the political/decision making side of the alliance?

Anyway, is there a mechanism to kick nations out of the alliance without their consent or would it be necessary to officially dissolve the alliance and form a new one with the other nations?

There was a commentary on MSNBC about this. Quite interesting...the author laid forth (and yeah, I do mean laid)
the claim that France, Germany, and Belgium are the one's who are being faithful to the NATO charter, and that the US is both violating the charter and threatening the integrity of the organization itself

I don't see it. NATO is a defensive alliance. All members of the alliance are sovereign nations (thus able to take independent action without the others) but they have pledged to come to each others aid when threatened. The US is trying to lead the UN (not NATO) into a war against Sadaam Hussein and short of that it wants to convince as many of its friends as possible (both NATO and non-NATO) to join. In reaction to the expected attack most experts expect Hussein to lash out at its neighbors and especially our friends. As a result Turkey is asking for purely defensive aid and France, Germany and Belgium are vetoing it. So how is it that we (acting independantly of NATO) are threatening its integrity while France, Germany and Belgium in withholding legitimate defensive capabilities from a fellow NATO ally that is under threat are being faithful to the alliance?

Do you think the "non aryan" nature of the Turk has something to do with Der Vaterland's attitude?

No. It is true that they don't really like the Turks but I don't think this has anything to do with it. I think it is what it looks like on the face of it, they are holding the defensive needs of an ally hostage to their attempts to pressure the US to do what they want.

I am especially dismayed, but not very surprised, at Germany out of this triad. They gained more from the NATO alliance during the Cold War than anyone. Without NATO the Eastern Bloc would have rolled into Germany by the end of the 1950's. Turkey was/is a member of NATO in good standing and helped provide for the defense of Germany, even when/if it wasn't really in their best interests (Turkey probably could have remained neutral in the Cold War without much risk).

Anyway, out of the two I'd much prefer to have the Turks watching my back. As good as the German reputation for military ability, their troops historically didn't do so well when they had the heads cut off from the troops (they depended heavily on guidance from their officers, the troops and NCOs were never very good at taking the initiative). More recently the left-wing and pacifist nature of the bulk of today's German population doesn't bode well for maintaining military ability. The Turks however, have always been fierce fighters with the ability to work independantly when necessary. Ask any group that has faced them in the last century or two who'd they rather face?

 

[KMKeller]

I'm probably way off base here, but it looks more and more to me like France and Germany are trying to establish themselves as the "big boys" of the EU and are attempting to do this by throwing around their collective weight in a direct challenge to US and allied policy. Essentially saying to the world that yes, they can indeed stand up to the US as an equal. Puffing their combined chest as it were.

The EU collective offers them something that they, individually, haven't had for some time. Some sort of "clout".

 

[chaim]

I'm probably way off base here, but it looks more and more to me like France and Germany are trying to establish themselves as the "big boys" of the EU and are attempting to do this by throwing around their collective weight in a direct challenge to US and allied policy. Essentially saying to the world that yes, they can indeed stand up to the US as an equal. Puffing their combined chest as it were.

The EU collective offers them something that they, individually, haven't had for some time. Some sort of "clout".

I think you hit it on the head.

France used to be a major force in the world. It was the most important nation in the world diplomatically, it was significant militarily, it was strong economically. However, it has been on decline for quite some time (certainly since WWI, probably since Napoleon's loss at the gates of Moscow or the Battle of Waterloo). With the exception of the actual generation that were adults at the time, France has never forgiven us for liberating them in WWII (I think they resent us for the humilation of having to be liberated more than they resent the Germans for occupying them).

Germany used to be a world power, and there isn't much need to elaborate as the history here is well known. After WWII there was an engineered change in German society (today's extreme pacifism really is our, along w/ Europe's, fault). However, they do still wish to be important politically to match their economic importance. Of course, the pacifism, internationalism and leftism we incubated there, along with the fear their neighbors still feel towards them (whatever else, Europeans do not have short memories) keep them from strengthening independently.

France and Germany have a lot to gain in their recent collaborations. Together they both become significant in ways they aren't and possibly can't alone. In asserting themselves they want to distance themselves from the US (actually a sign of insecurity, but...).

I forsee a split in Europe. France and Germany leading a few smaller nations on one end with Britain and Eastern Europe on the other (pro-US) end. I actually see Russia potentially being more of our friend than France and Germany (don't forget that before the Bolshevic (sp) Revolution Russia was one of our closest friends and trade partners).

 

[KMKeller]

Franmany or Gerrance? Rather than being forced to surrender sometime in the future, France chooses to acquiesce and become the bootlicker once again. How very French of them!

 

[BenW]

No, it has something to do with the narrow-mindedness of a chancellor who will go down in history as the most unpopular chancellor our Federal Republic had so far.

That pretty much explains it. Most of my relatives still live in Germany, in the rather conservative Bavaria. When one of my uncles was visiting here a few months ago (before Germany became actively opposed to us) You couldn't talk to the guy without him working, "That no good communist of a Chancellor" or, "Those idiot Greens" into the conversation.

You have to remember -- how many of you felt Bill Clinton spoke for you when he was President and speaking for the US? We can't excuse the German government for what it's doing now, but it certainly isn't the will of all the people.

 

[10-Ring]

Basing your decisions on a consensus vote rather than good & evil, right & wrong is what's bogging down the members of NATO. France, Germany & Belgium just need to remember who Europe ran to for help in the past...it's now time to step up! :banghead:

 

[Sleeping Dog]

I gotta wonder why Turkey asked for help in the first place. Did they think of asking NATO all by themselves? Or did GWB convince them to ask, just to goad France and Germany (and Belgium ... Belgium?).

I'm guessing the US was trying to use NATO agreements to make an end run around the UN security council.

The US could easily defend Turkey. Just pull our troops out of Bosnia and move them to Turkey. France, Germany, and Belgium can watch the Bosnia area without our help.

Regards.

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

I gather all Turkey asked for was some planning assistance. Not troops or equipment.

 

[chaim]

I gather all Turkey asked for was some planning assistance. Not troops or equipment.

It also sounds like they wanted some equipment and personnel for certain defensive capabilities (Patriot missle batteries, anti-chem and bio weapons teams).

I gotta wonder why Turkey asked for help in the first place...

The US could easily defend Turkey

Actually, there are reasons even for us to be in the alliance other than our benevolence to protect everyone else.

Different countries have different strengths and weaknesses.

In this case one of the most important things Turkey was asking for we can do but the Czechs can do better. The best chem and bio units in the world come out of the Czech Republic.

 

[Delmar]

It was my understanding that NATO was supposed to protect the democratic countries of Europe against the commie hordes from wherever, but mostly against the Soviet Union.
The Soviets have changed from a threat into a nation in need of almost everything.
It would be nice if the European Union could collectively defend themselves against what ever without the presence of the American military, and I think they should take the responsibility and deal with the consequences.
If we wanted to have some kind of defense treaty with the eastern European countries recently freed from communist tyranny, I would have no problem with that.
It does seem the more prosperous EU countries are taking advantage of the situation with America, and if they wish to have our continued presence in the form of men and materiel, they should be made to pay for it.
The American taxpayer cannot be expected to foot the bill or at least the majority of if in order to police the world's problems.