NATO veto
Truly a brilliant move of France, Germany and Belgium to veto preparations for preparing defense for Turkey in case of a war.
I mean -- that's what the Alliance is for, isn't it? If there's a potential war at the other side of Europe, who cares that Turkey wants some defense?
Hmm -- sorry if I see this a bit too negative. But I think it's one thing not to agree on attacking Saddam Hussein, quite another matter to danger to relationships in Nato in such a way. Lord Robertson seems to be a little bit optimistic:
"It is serious that after three weeks, we have not got an agreement. But a lot of people are working very hard to make sure an agreement takes place, and I’m confident that if people look at the serious implications of not getting a decision than that will, I hope, give an impetus to providing a solution and getting a consensus."
- Log in to post comments
Comments
NATO veto
JP:
I understand both sides.
On one side the US, Turkey and 12 others want to start preparations for deployment of extra defence systems in Turkey.
I can imagine that and Turkey has asked for it.
Why should you refuse a request from an ally?
Belgium and France (and more or less Germany but hasn't officially used its veto) want to wait till the end of the week.
Then the second Blix report will be published.
I can imagine that if the report is satisfying, there is no need for extra defence in Turkey.
Why would you start such a procedure if after a week you find out it is not necessary?
Besides that is it also a signal to the US that they cannot give orders to other countries.
NATO veto
Well, I believe that a defense-institute like the Nato should not be used to give such kind of signals. If a country doesn't agree with attacking Saddam Hussein, then that's a legitimate political choice. If a country believes the US are 'giving orders' and the country doesn't like that: that's a decent point of view (although absolutely not one I share).
However, even if you totally disagree with a war on Saddam Hussein you shouldn't let your allies down. It's a very fundamental aspect of the alliance: assist each other in case of emergency. There are many other ways to make your possible disagreement with the US known, just please don't "play" with something so very crucial for Europes security like Nato.
NATO veto
I wrote that I agree that you cannot refuse the call of an ally.
But the question is if it is necessary to make that decision now.
Why can't it wait another 5 days?
After all Saddam didn't threaten Turkey nor did he attack it in the last gulf war.
I think Israel is in much more danger, but that is a different discussion.
Also the point that Belgium and France signaled the US is just a result of their action, I believe it wasn't the goal.
NATO veto
One does not let down ons friends, when they do call on yuo for help. But I don't know if that applies for countries. Politics is never what it seems to be. I don't hear Turkey react so very annoyed and angry, so maybe it is a pre war political game?
(who are the public they are playing for?)
jjb
NATO veto
It is very unlikely that a war with Iraq would start within 5 days, so you're right that in that sense it is no big deal. The thing is: whether or not it's necessary to help Turkey is a decision Turkey should make, not the other Nato members. The whole system would start to loose its value if you can't count unconditionally on other's immediate support when you feel you're threatened.
How would it feel for Turkey, that their request for defensive help is put on hold, just because other Nato members think the US shouldn't attack Iraq? It has never happened in the history of Nato before that such a (simple) request was put on hold, not even during the Cold War. I really believe that the purpose of the France/German action was not to hurt Turkey, but to say "slow down" to the Americans. And that is exactly what I think is totally wrong...
Anyway, it seems like Turkey seems to be taking it not extremely heavy: "Still, Turkey's leaders played down the disagreement, saying the alliance was split over timing, not principle. 'This is not a question of whether or not NATO will support Turkey in a war,' Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis told reporters." (from CNN).
Let's hope the Nato will get to a consensus soon, and it seems like they're working on that. Times are difficult enough without big problems in the Nato.