NATO Solidarity Draws Praise From U.S., British Defense Chiefs

TAORMINA, Italy, Feb. 10, 2006 – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and British Defense Minister John Reid had high praise for the way NATO nations are working together in remarks here last night.

The two defense leaders spoke with reporters after their bilateral session. They're here in the shadow of Mount Etna on Sicily's east coast for an informal meeting of NATO defense ministers that concludes today.

Reid said he is "heartened and delighted at the solidarity of NATO's work in Afghanistan."

"It's a difficult but hugely important operation for NATO in Afghanistan," he said. "We all recall that that is where the terrorists prepared, planned, launched the biggest terrorist strike in history - thousands of innocent people died. And our resolve that that should never happen again is why we're there."

Reid said that while solidarity already was evident in the alliance, the upcoming expansion of NATO's International Security Assistance Force into Afghanistan's southern provinces further underscores the member nations' commitment. "The British, Dutch, Canadians, Danes, Estonians, and I hope others will be joining us there. That response was, I think, for those who wanted to see NATO display its mutual solidarity."

It's especially important, the British defense minister said, for NATO's European members to play an active role in the alliance's effectiveness in the fight against terrorism.

"If we're going to make sure that NATO is a true force for good in the world," he said, "then we Europeans need to step up to the mark and make sure that we are contributing not only toward the discussions in NATO - which are very important - but also the resources ... and the resolution and will to deploy them in the areas of difficulty. And I believe that if we do that, individually and collectively as European nations, then we will form a long and stable partnership with NATO."

Rumsfeld emphasized NATO's evolution from a defensive alliance to an expeditionary one. "NATO historically had been defending the NATO treaty area, period. And there were great debates back in the '70s and '80s about even the thought that NATO would do something else outside of the NATO treaty area."

NATO helped the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld said, and the alliance since has been active is Bosnia and Kosovo. "And the fact that they have undertaken a significant responsibility in Afghanistan, not only out of the NATO treaty area, but out of Europe - well out of Europe - is a significant adjustment and change in how the NATO alliance is functioning."

He noted ISAF started its Afghanistan mission in the north, followed by the west and soon in the south, with long-term plans seeing ISAF expanding to the country's eastern provinces. "It says a lot about the NATO alliance and the nature of the 26 nations that comprise that alliance, and also the strength that comes to the alliance from the Partnership for Peace nations that participate with us."

The end of the Cold War and the current state of the world necessitated NATO's transformation, the secretary said. "There's a reason that NATO is involved in Afghanistan," he said. "This is the 21st century. The problems are not specifically nation-state problems; they're not specifically even regional problems. In many instances, they're global problems. And it requires an alliance like NATO to evolve and adjust and face the challenges that exist in this new century."

As stakeholders in what he called "the international global system," Rumsfeld added, NATO nations have the obligation to contribute to the system's strength and the security that makes it all possible.

Guess who are the obstacles to NATO reorganizing into something usable to meet current and future threats? France to a lesser degree Germany which now may change its position with Merkel. Why? France sees NATO in direct competition with it’s goals to wrap up “old” Europe under it’s own security blanket. That’s why France reassured the world that it would use nuclear weapons against terror just recently. It’s to beat the drum they have been beating for a decade now.

France a NATO member is probably one of NATO’s greatest threats. Inside the organization they can undermine it like now outsider can.

NATO needs to be kept alive and remain THE primary security organization! It is the PRIMARY reason why Europe not only stayed free and the Cold War was won, but why we have had an unprecedented span of peace within Europe. NATO creates understanding, builds links and relationships. Everything from the Greek/Turkish feud to Afghanistan is touched by this organization. NATO is the most powerful military alliance EVER to be formed on this planet. It is an organization which is committed to peace through force.

In 1989 the world changed. The threats today are no longer 30,000 Warsaw Pact tanks behind the Iron Curtin. The Balkans, Afghanistan, and many other issues have been handled very well by this organization. Despite the French we should not kill NATO! That would be a dreadful mistake! Even while the French and Germans blocked all NATO support for Iraq, some within NATO still helped us. Some today still need NATO and even for us it’s a great organization.

Fortunately, Rumsfeld kept the organization strong and is pushing for reform of its structures. Despite a Joschka Fischer at a NATO meeting stating “I am not convinced, I am not convinced”, the US kept on course to strengthen this institution and not cut its throat. Irrational emotional outbursts would have damaged the institution. Today with a Germany that will be more supportive the French will be forced to play their anti-NATO agenda more subtly. THIS is the multi-lateral way, not what France wants, which equates to no more than a return to a world of “power blocks” and “spheres of influence”. Ironic how it’s the saboteurs of this organization that call the US unilateral.

YES!!!!

NATO can do what the UN would fail at. NATO was DESIGNED for conflict. It is right now the most capable design and structure we have to deal with current and emerging threats. No other organization is as capable or viable. The UN is a great forum for third world nations to make demands and form human rights commissions with members that torture, and WMD commissions with members that proliferate WMD. It’s an organization led by Kofi Annan, need I say more? NATO is an organization that is CAPABLE of being the Western alliance that deal with our collective security concerns.

Unfortunately, some within it try hard to undermine it. NATO imploding would mean France gains in EU influence. So they work against the organization in all reality. That's why they quickly jumped to Schroeder’s side and backed him in blocking any attempt to engage this organization reference Iraq. For him it was election games 2002 (Bash Bush and get reelected), for them it was an agenda of undermining NATO. Since about 1996 France has been actively working against this organization. Their idea of multi-lateral is to cut the US out of a security policy that THEY perscribe onto Europe.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.