Posted on 09/20/2007 3:26:32 AM PDT by tellw
Print | Close this window Giuliani says NATO should admit Israel, Japan
LONDON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani urged NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore on Wednesday as part of proposals to combat Islamic extremism.
Speaking to a U.S.-British conservative group in London, Giuliani said Britain and the United States must stand side-by-side in tackling Islamic terrorism.
"This is no time for defeatism and appeasement," he said.
He also ruled out a "pre-determined timetable" for a U.S. pullout from Iraq and said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was right to reject such a timetable for British forces.
Victory there should depend on reaching a point at which Iraq could be maintained as a U.S. ally "in the terrorist war against us", said Giuliani, Republican frontrunner in the race to succeed George W. Bush in the November 2008 election.
Iraq was part of a much larger war, Giuliani said, urging Washington and London not to be distracted from Afghanistan, where he called for a redoubling of efforts.
Among his proposals for the United States and Britain to take the lead in "winning this war", Giuliani urged the two countries to push for an expansion of NATO into a global body.
"We should open the organization's membership to any willing state that meets basic standards of good governance, military readiness (and) global responsibility, regardless of location," he said.
"I think we should consider countries such as Australia, Singapore, India, Israel, Japan ... and there are probably a whole group of others that we could put on that list," he said.
The defense alliance has expanded in recent years but its current membership is 26 countries in North America and Europe.
CALL FOR EXPANDED U.S. MILITARY
Facing increasing war-weariness in the United States, Bush last week ordered gradual troop reductions in Iraq but defied calls for a dramatic change of course.
Giuliani, giving the first "Margaret Thatcher Atlantic Bridge" lecture to an audience that included the former British prime minister, called for an expansion of the U.S. military, saying it had cut back too much after the Cold War.
"We need to add at least 10 new combat brigades, that's probably just the beginning," Giuliani said, adding the United States faced not only Islamic terrorism, but also had to consider the possibility of a "large war with a nation state".
Speaking earlier, Giuliani said the United States should spell out clearly to Iran that it would not allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. Giuliani said he had discussed Iran with Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the past few days.
The West suspects Iran is developing atomic weapons but Tehran says its nuclear program is aimed solely at generating electric power.
"The policy of the United States of America should be very, very clear: we will use any option we believe is in our best interest to stop them from being a nuclear power," Giuliani said.
© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
Um... no.
The NATO treaty specifically excludes any country past a certain longitude - because of the Korea and Vietnam Wars. Guess Rudy can’t read.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Well any treaty can be amended but I agree that it’s a really bad idea — it is better for the US military and intel community to be the point of interface for any cooperative programs we need to have with Japan and/or Israel..... I don’t see what injecting the NATO political structure into those relationships would accomplish, it would just complicate matters.
Rudy, you realize that 4 of those 5 countries are nowhere near the North Atlantic (Israel isn't all that close either but if they let Turkey in then Israel shouldn't be too much of a stretch).
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Those other countries are already Major Non-NATO Allies (MNAs) but the NATO treaty would have to be amended.
I would argue that countries Giuliani listed outside of “official” NATO are better allies of the U.S. than most of the “old Europe” countries in the actual NATO. Maybe some of the Euros could swap out?
There may well be a good basis for some kind of treaty structure that could unite the countries listed, but I strongly doubt it should be within NATO — the decision-making structure of NATO is already so bulky and unwieldy as it is, and if you add any nations from other regions into the mix there’s the potential for nothing but gridlock, IMHO.
IF there is enough common ground to link Japan, Australia, Israel, et al in any kind of military alliance I think it would be far better if it were a parallel structure modeled as closely on NATO as feasible, but always able to operate independently with the USA if NATO doesn’t come along. There are times when Europe won’t be on board, times when countries as disparate and Japan and/or Israel and/or Australia may not be on board..... I think trying to wield a super-NATO worldwide may lead to paralysis ala the UN.
One other point: I think it’s almost inconceivable that any country other than the USA would even consider being bound in a military alliance with Israel. Even for the USA there would be a lot of pressure to keep our independence of action, and I doubt any other governments would agree to it.
seperate treaty deals need to be extracted from these people.
what were those old fashion treaties called
I mean, just damn. We’re already stretching the “North Atlantic” bit pretty far, but Japan? Are you kidding?
I’m not certain that injecting Singapore, India, Israel and Japan would bring NATO to any new-found clout or capabilities.
Might muddy the water actually. Too many cooks, ya know....
Just build another NATO for Pacific to get four out of the five, or expand ANZUS. We will have to think about a diffenerent solution for cooperation with Irael.
I thought Republicans were opposed to the kind of mentality that creates demilitarized zones or draws lines and says to our Military, "you cannot fight anyone past this point".
Lets see, what are the options here? We could 1) Create a second Military alliance, just for people on the *other* side of the line. More expense, more bureaucracy, etc. Or, we could 2) Expand the alliance we already have up and running, (but created in a past era) to include the new threats of this era. Or, we could 3) maybe satisfy everyone by renaming it something other than NATO. That way all these people who think it cannot include anyone *past that line*, will be happy.
As far as Australia is concerned, the ANZUS Treaty already contains similar provisions to the North Atlantic Treaty when it comes to diplomatic relations. There isn’t a standing force structure associated with it, but there isn’t really any need for one either.
NATO is still desperately needed as a counterbalance to the Warsaw Pact, which remains a serious ... oh, wait a sec
NATO doesn't need a new mission, It needs a successor. The North Atlantic isn't the epicenter any more, Today's enemy is in Riyadh and Beijing, not Moscow.
So what do we call the new alliance? Truman coined the phrase "United Nations," but that's kind of taken. Personally, I vote for "Justice League." It has a certain je ne sais qouis for anyone under 50. And I think we need more leaders with the courage to wear a cape.The US has as worse spokesmen than Superman.
There once was a NATO for the Pacific: The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The group fell apart when we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam.
NATO, as it is currently configured, is a solution seeking a problem. Allies such as India, Australia, Japan, Eithiopia, Israel, Iraq, etc. are more critical in the fight against islamofascism than Luxembourg, Austria and Iceland.
Israel is much more efficient if not bound to NATO burocracy.
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.