Germany, France and Belgium veto military aid to Turkey

[The Eclipse]

BECAUSE TURKEY, as the only alliance member bordering Iraq, is a likely staging ground for a U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein,
NATO’s 19 members convened an emergency meeting Monday at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, to begin planning how to respond to any Iraqi counterattack.
But France and Germany, which have led the opposition to U.S. military action in Iraq, were joined by Belgium in vetoing the planning process, intervening just an hour before it was to have been formally authorized. All NATO decisions require unanimous support.
Formally declaring that NATO planned to come to Turkey’s aid “would signify that ... any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone,” Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said.
In response, Turkey immediately requested emergency consultations under Article IV, NATO’s mutual defense treaty, the first time a member nation has ever invoked the provision. Those consultations ended Monday without resolution and were to continue Tuesday

(This is abridged, the full story is here

Even though I am tenatively against war in Iraq, I think this goes too far. NATO is about mutual defense, If Germany, France, and Belgium refuse to uphold NATO's base principles, then all three countries should be expelled from the organization.

Not that it matters, NATO, much like the UN is completely irrelevant.

[Ancient History]

It has a certain political clout, albeit minor, but moreso than the OTHER TO's.

I'd look more toward economic measures by the EU to the insubordinate countries.

Frankly though, my sympathies lie with both the French and Germans (let's try peace before blowing shit up to make our president think he has a big dick) and Turkey (fuck, WE don't want tog et hit with chemical/biological maybe Nuclear weapons because Bush wants the world to think he has a Big Dick!)

My personal suggestion is a private, totally sequestered and hush-hush council to draw up plans for aiding Turkey if it's invaded/attacked; while pursuing peace by all possible means.

'Course, I also advocate a top-security, no-press UN security council meeting (sans Iraq) where various intelligence communities throughout the world come forward to share ALL their data on Iraq. Basically, show your bridge partners your hand and work up how to handle the situation correctly. The stuff Powell (the only American with credibility at this point) presented was good...but nowhere near good enough to convince the nations of the world.

[Camouflage]

Well, looking at the title of the thread, I guess that someone here has litle to no clue of what he's talking about.

Belgium (not Bulgaria), France and German did NOT veto military aid for Turkey, neither do they plan to deny them help should they be attacked (actually, Germany is ATM shipping Patriot-missiles to Turkey). What the veto is all about is starting the preparations for such a war right now. It's all about the timing the USA try to force on the rest of the world and nothing else.

[The Eclipse]

The error has been repaired, I suppose you don't make errors do you?


The point is that they have actively opposed the defense of a member nation. Regardless of the semantics you try to play on it, that's the case isn't it? All the window dressing (We aren't saying we won't help, JUST NOT YET.) doesn't change that basic fact. There are other soapboxes for them to make political statements, defense of their allies is not one of them.

[The Traveler]

The error has been repaired, I suppose you don't make errors do you?

The point is that they have actively opposed the defense of a member nation. Regardless of the semantics you try to play on it, that's the case isn't it? All the window dressing (We aren't saying we won't help, JUST NOT YET.) doesn't change that basic fact. There are other soapboxes for them to make political statements, defense of their allies is not one of them.

Er, I think that was the point of the semantics. Turkey isn't being attacked, and the proposition isn't related to the defense of Turkey, but to the build-up leading to an attack on Iraq. Ergo it doesn't violate any NATO statutes.

[FlameBlade]

in other words, if Iraq even touches Turkey, NATO will be down Iraq's throats...in other words, it's limiting US effectiveness and at the same time, Iraq's effectiveness.

I think that these countries are doing what they THINK are right for now.

[Salvation122]

And this differs frim the status quo how, exactly, Flame?

[FlameBlade]

So, you're implying that France, Germany, and one other country should be repressed just because they don't want to wage a war?

[Salvation122]

Well, that depends entirely on who's doing the oppressing, though I hardly see France and Germany as being "oppressed." There's a difference between smacking someone down and ignoring their opinion. However, I was referring to

I think that these countries are doing what they THINK is right for now.

which seems to be somewhat axiomatic.

[FlameBlade]

point out my use of "think"

as in

"I think"

In other words, I only think, therefore, I have no proof.

[Camouflage]

The error has been repaired, I suppose you don't make errors do you?

Oh, I simply wanted to point out that you mixed up the names. My comment was actually targetted at the thread title.

The point is that they have actively opposed the defense of a member nation. Regardless of the semantics you try to play on it, that's the case isn't it? All the window dressing (We aren't saying we won't help, JUST NOT YET.) doesn't change that basic fact. There are other soapboxes for them to make political statements, defense of their allies is not one of them.

Well, I could just give that comment back to you:
Germany is not blocking the defense of Turkey, but is opposed to prepare it as part of the US preparations for a preventive war on Iraq (btw: "preparation for a preventive war" is a capital crime in Germany, which might explain why we're so opposed to the whole concept), no matter how much YOU go into semantics to call it something else.

[Dennis]

The United States will have to come to terms with the fact that many prominent nations do not want to play ball. And that's okay, because the United States is very capable of playing ball all by itself, and though the repercussions might sting a little [read: a _little_] because the rest of the world is more dependent on the Unites States than the other way around [read: disregarding that whole oil situation], the citizens of the United States will be pleased to find out just how long W's dick is, and will read about him in the history books for years to come as the one who spearheaded the fight against terrorism.

Because, essentially, that's what I think this is all about; the fact that still - even after 'liberating' an entire country from oppression - they still haven't made someone pay for Semptember 11th.

So, regardless of international opinion, Iraq can kiss it's sweet contemporary ass goodbye, and say hello to a Germanic/Japanese situation, where soldiers will be stationed in and around Baghdad for decades to come.

[Marius]

Because, essentially, that's what I think this is all about; the fact that still - even after 'liberating' an entire country from oppression - they still haven't made someone pay for Semptember 11th.

I'm suprised you can, in good honesty, put 'liberating' in quotes there. As if to suggest that the Taliban was not oppressive, or that Afghanistan does not now have a more liberal government.

I'm not suprised that you identify the move on Iraq with some juvenile drive for retribution. But if you do, you're quite wrong. Bush addressed the issue of Iraq in his campaign, in 2000, long before there was any fervor over international terrorism.

So, regardless of international opinion, Iraq can kiss it's sweet contemporary ass goodbye

And luckly, we don't have to disregard international opinion. Fully 18 European nations, and a host of others are behind the U.S. in this venture. It's a contemptible unilateral minoritiy who are the outliers now.

[Dennis]

I'm suprised you can, in good honesty, put 'liberating' in quotes there. As if to suggest that the Taliban was not oppressive, or that Afghanistan does not now have a more liberal government.

Well, I think you know my stance on fucking with a country's culture just because you think women should have equal rights to men. I don't think the Taliban people were very nice either, but that's my opinion, not truth. Values differ, and thus opinions differ. *shrug*

I'm not suprised that you identify the move on Iraq with some juvenile drive for retribution. But if you do, you're quite wrong. Bush addressed the issue of Iraq in his campaign, in 2000, long before there was any fervor over international terrorism.

Alright, that's a good point. I suppose I shouldn't have been so hasty to toss it on that pile, however, I think there is still a case to be made that the whole campaign is still riding on that "Fight Against Terrorism" deal, which was sparked by the hit on the WTC in New York. You see, the first time around, they kicked Iraqi hoop because they were expanding into territories that, generally, weren't regarded as Iraqi. Now it's because we suspect they are stockpiling. And perhaps you say that Mr. Powell delivered enough evidence to warrant mass destruction of Baghdad, but...

And luckly, we don't have to disregard international opinion. Fully 18 European nations, and a host of others are behind the U.S. in this venture. It's a contemptible unilateral minoritiy who are the outliers now.

...as much as I like countries like Bulgaria and Luxembourgh, they're not exactly the Don Corleone's of international politics, and many prominent nations didn't consider the evidence warranting military intervention. Actually, isn't the United States the only prominent country that warrants military action?

[MooCow]

Actually, isn't the United States the only prominent country that warrants military action?

[Arrogant American Opinion] Aren't we the only one that counts?[/AAO]

[Dennis]

Actually, isn't the United States the only prominent country that warrants military action?

[Arrogant American Opinion] Aren't we the only one that counts?[/AAO]

That depends on how you look at it. I'm of the opinion that Iraq thinks that you guys are the only one that counts, because all the other countries the United States going to drag into this [with the exception of Great Britain] are just going to be fluff in the crack of the US' ass.

Germany, China, France and Russia, however, don't think so.

[Serious Paul]

Out of curiousity, how much money is tied up in Iraq by Germany, France, China and Russia?


Yeah they're in it "'cause they're against the war dude!"


"Surfs up big Kahuna!"

[Dennis]

Out of curiousity, how much money is tied up in Iraq by Germany, France, China and Russia?

I wouldn't know.

Yeah they're in it "'cause they're against the war dude!"

They're in what because they don't want war? The first time around people got geared up because they were expanding into Kuwait by force, and thus the Kuwaiti people and oil fields needed to be protected. This time around the US wants to kick hoop because they think they're stockpiling. There is a difference.

[The Eclipse]

Germany is not blocking the defense of Turkey, but is opposed to prepare it as part of the US preparations for a preventive war on Iraq (btw: "preparation for a preventive war" is a capital crime in Germany, which might explain why we're so opposed to the whole concept), no matter how much YOU go into semantics to call it something else.

Gee, I don't seem to remember calling the supposed war against Iraq anything at all, so you can rest assured that I won't put a semantic twist on an opinion I have never stated, but thank you for your concern.

The point that I made was; NATO's point is mutual defense, it is not the place for Germany, France and Belgium to attempt to use another country as a bargaining chip to prevent a war.

They should carry their political opinions off and state them at the proteanly useless United Nations.

[Toryu]

The Washington Treaty

Of special interest is Article 5:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

It is very much debatable that article 5 can be used in thise case, i.e. before an armed attack on a Turkey has even taken place. Article 7 outlines the primacy of the Security Council.

Given these legal circumstances, France, Belgium and Germany had every right to refuse to agree to the proposal, as it would only lead to an acceleration and an increased inevitability of the conflict.

'"We cannot through a Nato decision today give our unconditional support to armed intervention in Iraq and thereby prejudge decisions which are the responsibility of the Security Council," French foreign ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau said.'

I can only agree to that.

[Marius]

Dude, Turkey has invoked Article 4. That, of course, calls only for nations to consult in the case that one feels threatened, and it can be said that France, Germany, and Belgium have at least given lip service to consultation. They nevertheless weaken the alliance by making defense of a member secondary to defence of an enemy. I wouldn't call it treasonous, but that's the first word that comes to mind.

[Toryu]

Article 4 states that members are to consult if a member feels threatened. The way that America portrays it is that France, Germany and Belgium are "ungrateful" in their refusal to the proposal. But since Article 5 hasn't been evoked, it is their full right to refuse to agree. That is the point I was trying to make, Marius.

[ratlaw]

I'm suprised you can, in good honesty, put 'liberating' in quotes there. As if to suggest that the Taliban was not oppressive, or that Afghanistan does not now have a more liberal government.

Well, I think you know my stance on fucking with a country's culture just because you think women should have equal rights to men. I don't think the Taliban people were very nice either, but that's my opinion, not truth. Values differ, and thus opinions differ. *shrug*

So in the US Civil War the Northern states were in the moral wrong? What about the US, Russia and Britain in World War II? Should they have stopped at the borders of Germany because the Germans just had different values? And before you point out that the Germans invaded Europe first, remember that the Taliban invaded Afganistan from, and with the backing of, Pakistan.

Personally, I think the allegations that Cheney's oil company had interests in an oil pipeline through Afganistan that the Taliban blocked is a more telling critique of the Bush administration's motives in Afganistan than this "values differ" angle.

[null]

Ratlaw, concerning the US and Canada during the second world war [The UK and Russia were looking out for number one, so I'll neglect those]: They were responding to pleas from countries that were being invaded by a hostile force. Should they have stopped at the borders of Germany; yes, in principle they should've, unless their was a publicly heard cry from the Germans to get rid of the Nazi party.

The Taliban invaded Afghanistan, true. And at the time people should've stood up and responded to the call of the original Afghans - if ever there was one. They shouldn't have put it on their todo list and wait however long and as an after-thought went to "liberate" Afghanistan when the hostile force had already become institution.

Also - and I might be confused with another case - but didn't the US have a hand in the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan? Not that I'm implying that it takes away the right to do anything about it. I'm just curious.

Moral of the story: don't fuck with another country just because you don't like what goes on there - especially if your help is not requested, and definitely not when it's not appreciated.

[FlakJacket]

Also - and I might be confused with another case - but didn't the US have a hand in the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan? Not that I'm implying that it takes away the right to do anything about it. I'm just curious.

Yes and no. The CIA backed the anti-Communist Mujahideen fighters- of which the Taliban were an extreme part of.

The best analagy I can think of is that like the French resistance during WW2- all fighting the Germans, but made up of a number of competing groups e.g. Gaullists, anti-Gaullists, Communists etc. The Mujahideen were also split along not just political views but tribal and geographical factions as well so things got really messy.

So the CIA was pumping in arms and support to anti-Communist forces- all of which were labelled under the general title of Mujahideen as a whole- of which the Taliban was a small part. At least that's how I understood it to be.

[null]

Thank you for that bit of information.

[Daki]

My Military History professor in college spent a great deal of time on Afghanistan covering, what he called, the Soviet's "Vietnam". I think the only reason the US had such an easy time last year was because most of the men of fighting age were already dead.

[Salvation122]

And they didn't have any kind of international backing, which, for a country that size, is pretty much necessary to provide a credible defense.

[The Traveler]

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Belgium offered a compromise Saturday to end a bitter dispute within the NATO alliance over providing military aid to Turkey in advance of a possible war against Iraq.

Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said Belgium, France and Germany would endorse a U.S. proposal for such help if NATO makes clear the aid is defensive in nature and it must not be seen as making the alliance a participant in war preparations against Iraq.

That prove that this isn't a "screw over Turkey to spite America" dealie?

[Bethyaga]

Ratlaw, concerning the US and Canada during the second world war [The UK and Russia were looking out for number one, so I'll neglect those]: They were responding to pleas from countries that were being invaded by a hostile force. Should they have stopped at the borders of Germany; yes, in principle they should've, unless their was a publicly heard cry from the Germans to get rid of the Nazi party.

Bah.

Every nation ever has at least some malcontents who will welcome an outside force to liberate them from the oppressors. How many of them do they have to be to justify action, Deev? How loud do they have to be? I note that you say it must be a "publicly heard cry," so I guess that means that if the bad guys are really good at oppressing, then we don't have to do anything, because we can't hear anyone complaining.

You realize that during WWII, there were rumors about Nazi atrocities, but we didn't have any hard evidence until we went in, and if we really had stopped at their borders, we likely never would have had any "publicly heard cry," because the victims had no voice. But just because we didn't hear a massive outcry from Germans begging us to invade doesn't change the fact that true evil was taking place that the modern world universally agrees needed to be stopped. We needed to go into Germany at the time, and it's a good thing that we did.

[Toryu]

Thanks, Trav.

Plus, as Camo already pointed out elsewhere, Germany already agreed to supply Turkey with our Patriot missile defence systems. Bilaterally, outside NATO, that is. And rest assured that we'd come to the aid of Turkey, once it actually were under attack. The chancellor stated that publicly numerous times.

[Toryu]

We needed to go into Germany at the time, and it's a good thing that we did.

True. In retrospect. As you once told me in some other thread: Hindsight is 20/20.