Posted on 02/10/2003 2:59:05 PM PST by MadIvan
Franco-German scheming that makes war more likely
No two governments have been more insistent than those of Germany and France that Saddam Hussein can be made to bow before the will of the international institutions he has for 12 years treated with contempt. No two countries have done more, in recent weeks, to undermine the credibility of these institutions. Europe’s delinquent duo has declared opposition to “the logic of war”. Nothing could be less logical, in terms of their proclaimed objective of peaceably disarming Iraq, than to throw spanners in the works at the UN and now also at Nato.
At the UN, Franco-German efforts to blunt the intimidatory impact of Resolution 1441 make war more likely than ever. In the crucial days before Hans Blix reports to the Security Council, the last thing the chief weapons inspector needed was a harebrained Franco-German scheme to dispatch lightly-armed UN peacekeepers to Iraq; it would give Saddam Hussein thousands of potential hostages. Dr Blix does not believe they will help. In the event of war, they would be unlikely to be allowed to leave and unable to fight their way out.
Meanwhile, at Nato, the refusal by France, Belgium and Germany to give Turkey access to purely defensive Nato equipment is an even more careless own goal. It has precipitated a pointless crisis in the Alliance, reinforced Turkish suspicions that its European Nato allies will leave it alone to face a pre-emptive attack by Iraq and, with justification, exasperated the US. The idea that Nato cannot even make contingency plans until the Security Council has acted is as hypocritical as it is militarily absurd. This is about tweaking the American tail, not about international law.
Turkey will get this equipment in any event, as Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, emphasised to The Times at the weekend; indeed the total incoherence of Germany’s position is underlined by the fact that, even while backing the French and Belgian veto on making available Patriot anti-missile systems in Nato’s inventory, Germany has promised Turkey Patriots of its own, manned by the Dutch. Turkey has tactfully depicted this as a technical dispute. It is not: it is a betrayal of Nato principles to refuse a Nato state up against the border with Iraq the means to defend itself.
French nose-thumbing at Nato councils is no novelty; Belgium’s action recalls its refusal to sell Britain bullets in the last Gulf War; but Germany, a Cold War frontline state resolutely defended by Nato for half a century, should be more mindful of its historical debt. Now, for the first time, Turkey has invoked Article 4 of the Nato Charter — notifying Nato that its “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is under threat. Turkey should never have been put in this position. Its new government, headed by a party with Islamist roots, is seeking to persuade a public opposed to war that Turkey must stand by its all-important American ally. Tony Blair’s difficulties with British public opinion are as nothing to those of Turkey’s leaders.
If the US cannot use Turkish bases to open a second front in the north, war, if it comes, will be longer and more hazardous, not just for Turkey but for the Iraqi people. To reassure the Turks that they can count on far greater solidarity than they had last time around, Washington has offered billions in economic aid as well as military assistance. Nato remained deadlocked last night and will not now meet until Tuesday — mere hours before Turkey’s parliament votes on whether to allow tens of thousands of US combat troops to use its bases. If that vote fails, Iraq is even less likely to do as Germany and France want. This is anti-Americanism at its purblind, populist worst.
Regards, Ivan
This time the US is not going to forgive and forget. There must be permanent repercussions to prevent this sort of backstab in the future.
Why is that?
They aren't always on the money.
This is the Times of London, owned by Rudolph Murdock, not the NY Times1
Rupert Murdoch. I know that. But they backed Labour in the last British elections over the conservatives.
Yes, Murdock backed Blair, I am not sure why, it might have been to destroy the weak sister Tories controlling that party at the time. Maybe MadIvan will comment on this
I remember Ronald Reagan saying once "I paid for this mike."
My question is: Who paid for that Nato equipment France, Germany and Belgium are refusing to give?
Some histoire:
Among the most admirable moves of President Lyndon Johnson came in the mid-1960s, following Charles de Gaulle’s announcement to withdraw France from NATO’s military alliance. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk finished briefing Johnson on the logistical details of his upcoming session with de Gaulle, the president calmly ordered something like, “Finally, Dean, ask de Gaulle if he also wants us to move the cemeteries of Americans buried there.” Rusk demurred, but Johnson made him ask. Should we also withdraw the graves of Americans who sacrificed their lives for France’s liberation from the Nazis?
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,74903,00.html
The original source is Rusk's memoir. (De Gaulle was speechless after Rusk, at the conclusion of the meeting, said he was asking about the bodies at the direction of his president.)
My understanding is that the Church over there is an improvement on what is going on here!
You prepared to put money on that?
Of course I must declare I'm an Irish Catholic, so I'd hate to be accused of 'insider trading' *L*
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.