Posted on 06/27/2004 7:11:26 PM PDT by Pikamax
Chirac leads resistance as Bush courts Nato allies
Ian Black and Michael White in Istanbul Monday June 28, 2004 The Guardian
President George Bush was facing stiff French-led resistance last night to his efforts to persuade his Nato allies to agree to train Iraqi security forces. The French president, Jacques Chirac, is determined to thwart any deal that allows the US and Britain to claim that the alliance has a formal role in the disputed occupation.
Tony Blair flew into Istanbul last night intent on talking up the summit's chance of achieving even a modest success in respect of Iraq and in terms of a wider Nato role in "forgotten" Afghanistan, but was keen to say nothing that would further offend France.
Mr Bush, Mr Blair, Mr Chirac and the leaders of the other 26 Nato members gathered in the Turkish city for a summit overshadowed by the continuing violence in neighbouring Iraq, days before power is handed over to Iraqis on June 30.
The political tension has been compounded by severe security worries after a spate of bomb blasts in Turkey's second city and mass demonstrations against Mr Bush. Yesterday main roads from the airport were closed to all but VIP traffic and the city's conference zone was cordoned off.
After D-day, the G8 summit and the EU-US meeting in Ireland, Nato is Mr Bush's fourth meeting this month with European leaders.
As the summiteers gathered, the EU managed to stitch up a compromise on its embarrassing failure at the Brussels summit to find a new president of the European commission: Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, the Portuguese prime minister, welcomed by No 10 as a "nation states man, not an ultra-federalist".
But continuing prickliness between the Franco-German axis and the US-led "new Europeans" makes this a sharp test of how far "old Europe" is prepared to put aside its differences with Washington.
These stem mostly from the split over Iraq. But the meeting is also a test of the expanded alliance's broader credibility and cohesion, not least in fulfilling pledges to Afghanistan before it's elections.
Last night the heads of state and government were dining at the historic Dolmabahce palace. Today's opening session of the summit is "Iraq day", and Afghan problems will be dealt with tomorrow.
France has signalled that it will approve the training of Iraqi forces - plentiful in number but weak in organisation, says No 10 - but it opposes the presence of any Nato flag or insignia on the ground in Iraq.
Paris and Berlin also want whatever share of training they do to take place outside Iraq. British officials say the training matters more than the location.
But officials with Mr Blair played down expectations of what could be achieved at the two-day event. "If we get some training and some progress on Afghanistan, as well as an EU commission president, it will have been worth the travel," one aide confided.
Earlier this year the US hoped the Atlantic alliance would seek to mend its fences by taking charge of the multinational stabilisation force in Iraq, currently led by Poland, after June 30.
It also hoped that UN resolution 1546, passed this month, would facilitate the process by providing the international legitimacy lacking last year - and do so before Mr Bush's November re-election test.
Now it is likely to make do with the lowest common den ominator - an agreement to train Iraqi troops to tackle the insurgency, at the request of Ayad Allawi, the interim prime minister.
Mr Bush made it clear at the EU-US meeting that he believed Nato should deliver the goods.
"The bitter differences of the war are over," he insisted. "Nato has the capability and I believe the responsibility to help the Iraqi people defeat the terrorist threat facing their country."
But even on that there are disagreements. The German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, said he would not send military instructors to Iraq, preferring to extend an existing programme training Iraq police officers outside the country.
If that was not enough, Nato has failed to meet its promises to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who will meet Mr Blair in Istanbul tomorrow.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's secretary general, has tried hard to play Iraq down but has insisted that the member states must take their commitments in Afghanistan more seriously.
That means extending the protection given by the 34-state International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) beyond Kabul. But Nato members say they are overstretched, and the 6,500 Isaf soldiers are far outweighed by the 20,000 US soldiers still hunting Osama bin Laden.
They are also outnumbered by the estimated 30,000 Turks protecting the summit.
True. If they're not part of NATO's military arm, they have no right to have a part in formulating and setting NATO policy, period. France wants the privilege of being in the alliance without having to take any of the responsibilties for defending it. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Let me tell y'all, its got to change!!!
The real question is, why did we let them back in.
"So the French betray the U.S."
Neil Sheehan in "Bright Shining Lie" suggests that we let France re-establish a colonial relationship in Vietnam after WWII in return for their participation in NATO. France then poisoned the well in Vietnam and we got involved in a war that cost us 58,000 lives. In the meantime, France withdrew military forces from NATO in 1966 and expelled U.S. forces stationed in France. Betrayal is nothing new to the French.
Karzai needs to meet personally and privately with Chirac and ask him why he won't support helping his country, in a nice or not so nice manner.
but but but .... It's all W's fault. Michael Moore says so.
Some of Michael Moore's friends:
http://www.cpusa.org/
http://www.dsausa.org/
DSA's "Progressive Caucas" Links below:
http://bernie.house.gov/pc/
http://bernie.house.gov/pc/members.asp
The Enemy Within!!!!
I think it's time to play hardball with the French. Kick out their ambassador for .... ha.... not paying import fees on French wine!!
have Cheney call Jerk Shitrack and tell him to F-himself
That's a good idea. They both speak the same F'n language and Cheney might F'n understand Kerry.
Are you sure about that ? I seem to recall discussions about their role being a political one rather than military as recently as last year. I don't believe they have a seat on NATO's Defense Planning Committee and if I'm not mistaken that is the military committee.
Looking at their website, I see France is not on the committee, so I guess I'm wrong.
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.