Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

JavaFox

In an unbelievable move, Germany, Belgium, France put their own selfish interests above the defense of an ally. Berlin, Brussels, and Paris vetoed plans to deploy defensive aircraft (AWACs), missile defense systems (Patriot), and chemical warfare defensive teams to Turkey, a member of NATO.

This is irresponsible and absolutely unthinkable. The degree to which you oppose war is irrelevant where the defense of an ally is concerned. Germany, Belgium, France know that the United States and Britain will war with Iraq bilaterally if they must. I cannot believe they would defy the other 16 members of NATO and DENY the deployment of technology that is PURELY DEFENSIVE merely because they oppose military action against Iraq.

It is unconscionable.

raid517

You are missing the point JF this isn't being done because France, Germany, Belgium and Russia (indeed majority of the rest of the civilised world) don't agree with the war, it has been done because these countries believe that to do so would give the USA a green light to invade. What is at stake here is the partnership of the Nato alliance itself, where if America fails to recognise the will of the international community on other issues and through other international bodies such as the UN, if they fail to recognise the need for genuine international partnership, then why should the international community feel obliged to tow the line through other international bodies? As the Belgian foreign minister said "it isn't a master servant relationship" it is an international partnership - and if the US fails to accept this then perhaps NATO itself is not something the USA should be involved in? It is the USA who is ignoring the will of the international community, it is the US who does not respect the institutions of the UN, it is the US who feel she has a god given right to stand alone in this world and dictate what standards of behaviour the rest of the world should adhere to. Perhaps the title of this thread should be renamed from Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words, to the United States of America, Selfish beyond Words... since it is the USA who feels able to ignore the views of almost every other civilised nation on the planet.

This is in any case the opposing perspective. I am sure many others will have their own points of view to add.

Q

bluelight

No you are wrong.It just shows that Americas government can not bully anyone around as they wish.They have not been elected to be our leaders and to tell us what to do.

Further more both Germany and France has ecplicitly said that if attacked Tukey will.....get help from them.The reason they do not participate is that they do not see the logic in sending two messages to Iraq that both have the meaning "War is inevitable no matter what you do" which is todays clear message in reality.

There is also another complication in that Usa has allowed Turkey in order to make them accept beingparty of this to invade The Kurdish parts of Norther Iraq in order to take control of the Kurds and prevent them to gain autonomy.This....was not the message sent to the Kurds by Usa before.Now they have been sold as so many times before.

Donald Rumsfeld was "on tour" in Europe and managed to insult some of Europes most prominent leaders.TOday i hear Bush doing the same thing.

Usa has today a government that is so bad at handling international issues that the climate between Usa and a large part of the rest of the globe is worse even than it was during the Vietnam war.



Pathetic.


During that time no government stood up like they do today and questioned the actions of your government.
'
Today some do.

Good.


As opposed to what your government says initsdeclaration of intents.....You do not....rule the rest of us.


You have been hammering the message for 12 months....With us or against us.....War or defeat.....



Well normally for governments that use their brains in international politics the solutions are more than two.

But then maybe Rumsfeld can count to more than two?


Iraq was supported by the Usa from the fall of the Shah in Iran all the way up to the Kuwait war.American money built some of his weapon industry which at that time also included chemical and biological arms.He was handy for you then to fight Iran....that was "a threat to world peace" as you saw it then.

Handy just like Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

As you plant you reap.

The solution in Iraq is to let the inspections continue.To keep the pressure extremely hard on Saddam until he leaves.....but killing and wounding an estimated 150 000 Iraq`is is not.

It will be cheaper both economically and humanitarian.

Of course you will not have the pleasure of showing how gloriously strong you are.....but then..the reat of the world can live without that.


BlueLight

JavaFox

You're right about one thing. The upcoming war on Iraq is putting the relevance of both the UN and NATO into question. If the UN is going to fail to enforce the mandates and resolutions it produced, then how is it a relevant institution? And in the same way, if the NATO alliance (lest we forget, one of the primary reasons this alliance exists is "collective self-defence") cannot live up to its obligations, then is it not also irrelevant?

I find your conclusions intensely interesting, Raid. Remember, Germany, France, and Belgium are the only three NATO nations that oppose defending Turkey. There are 19 members of NATO. I am curious as to how the US, in demanding that the UN meet its obligations and enforce its resolutions, is acting selfishly. How does the enforcement of UN resolutions undermine the UN?

The US is asking Germany, France, and Belgium to put their differences and protests aside to defend Turkey. And these countries are the ones that are defying the will of 16 other member nations and betraying an ally.

Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Dom

Selfish? I think not. The US is acting spoiled in thinking it should always get it's way.

raid517

I agree. As I said, this is not about whether we should defend other NATO allies or not, it is about whether America wants to be part of the international community or not. If America no longer wishes to play a part in this, then she need only continue on her current course. Indeed if other international institutions really are worthless to her, then perhaps all international bodies and institutions should be considered null and void too? That is what is at stake here and that is what the US appears all to ready to risk.

Q

bluelight

If you read my post again you will se that i am saying that both Germany and France have stated that:

IF Turkey is attacked they will help Turkey militarlily.This is not about Turkey being attacked.It is about Usa attacking Iraq.

I understand that your media and your politicians do NOT openly declare this since it is not serving their cause of starting the war at once.Claiming France and Germany are traitors for asking that the one international organisation (UN)that exists for dealing with this does its job first will certainly arouse the American public but here.....naahh....dont think so....

Further more.....military threat from Iraq against Turkey??????Theys have to pass the Kurd aras for that....and they are already controlled by Usa.......

Your government is out on a mission that isnt anchored in reality.Saddam is a pig and should be removed.But not by killing tens of thousands of his countrymen.He is probably a threat in some way but not THAT big a threat.

If he was..then that would certainly not present a very good image of the united democratic forces of this world.

He can be handled without the war.




BlueLight

bluelight

Oh and....sorry Im new here and i didnt say hello to you guys before replying.Excuse me.Nice place you got here.Came here from the Kx driver site.

BlueLight

digitalwanderer

First off, HOWDY BLUELIGHT!!!! Welcome to DriverHeaven! I hope ya like it here and stay awhile.

(That'll probably be the last friendly thing you see me post in politics, but I'm a real nice guy in all the other sections of the forum. )

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree completely and find it just reprehensible.

JavaFox

Thank you, DW.

I think the point that a lot of you are missing --and the one that DW did not-- is that this debate isn't about the war. You are siding with Germany and its ilk because you agree with its take on the US-led war on Iraq. And that is another debate for another thread.

This thread is concerned with defending Turkey. And in order to properly understand the debate, you need to agree with a few facts. None of these are value judgements, they are mere facts. And they are important in order to put this debate into context.

1) Many countries are opposed to the war on Iraq, including Germany, France, and Belgium (and many others).
2) Many countries are for military-led disarmament (USA, UK, Poland, Italy, Spain, Australia, et al)
3) NATO is an alliance whose primary function is mutual/shared defense.
4) If no consensus can be made in the UN, it is likely that the US, the UK, and Australia will fight Iraq anyway.
5) It is a distinct possibility that Turkey could be attacked in the event of a war on Iraq.

Now, whether or not you agree with the American/British position on Iraq is irrelevant to this debate. This isn't about whether or not you support the war. The American president has said that his coalition will move against Iraq even without France's consent (Germany and Belgium don't have veto power in the UN Security Council). This isn't a question of whether or not you think war in this situation is right. America probably will go to war. Whether this is selfish, unilateral, stubborn, or stupid isn't the point here.

If America does go to war, there is a very distinct possibility that Saddam will attack Turkey, considering the US has military bases there. In the Gulf War, many of our planes took off from Turkey.

The problem is that Germany and Company are letting their opinions of the war color their decisions about Turkish defense. NATO is charged to defend its allies. America will go to war whether Germany, France, and Belgium like it or not. So, instead of realizing this reality and agreeing to defend Turkey, those three nations said no. And it is about defense, inasmuch as Patriot missile and AWACs airplanes have no offensive use whatsoever.

I say their behavior is offensive and disgusting to the highest degree. I cannot believe it. We will fight Iraq, and that they would deny Turkey defense simply because they don't agree with warring with Iraq is truly reprehensible.

raid517

QUOTE]Originally posted by JavaFox
You're right about one thing. The upcoming war on Iraq is putting the relevance of both the UN and NATO into question. If the UN is going to fail to enforce the mandates and resolutions it produced, then how is it a relevant institution? And in the same way, if the NATO alliance (lest we forget, one of the primary reasons this alliance exists is "collective self-defence") cannot live up to its obligations, then is it not also irrelevant?

I find your conclusions intensely interesting, Raid. Remember, Germany, France, and Belgium are the only three NATO nations that oppose defending Turkey. There are 19 members of NATO. I am curious as to how the US, in demanding that the UN meet its obligations and enforce its resolutions, is acting selfishly. How does the enforcement of UN resolutions undermine the UN?

The US is asking Germany, France, and Belgium to put their differences and protests aside to defend Turkey. And these countries are the ones that are defying the will of 16 other member nations and betraying an ally.

Selfish, selfish, selfish. [/quote]

Well the selfish aspect of this is exactly as you have described it, in simply that the US is virtually prepared to negate all of these institutions in pursuit of her own goals. If you cannot see how this is potentially selfish and damaging to global stability then (if this attitude is shared by your country men) this is yet another reason why other nations have genuine cause for concern.

'I am curious as to how the US, in demanding that the UN meet its obligations and enforce its resolutions, is acting selfishly. How does the enforcement of UN resolutions undermine the UN?'

The UN is meeting its obligations, Hans Blick has recently achieved great success and has stated his belief that Iraq is now fully complying with UN inspectors. Even your own old bugbear about U2 spy planes looks like it may soon be resolved. In what sense therefore is the UN not doing its job?

No one is saying that the genuine threat of force should not exist - only that it should exist in partnership with other UN measures. What is unacceptable is that the US should say that whatever measures the UN proposes, or whatever successes they have, all of this is irrelevant as the US is determined to invade anyway, regardless of what progress is made.

Considering that these concerns are being voiced by senior members of Nato, it is a gross self indulgence to believe that their views should be discounted. Also lets see in the coming days how many other UN and Nato countries line up to support the US' position. My guess is that there will be very few. Indeed so fractured is the relationship of the US with the rest of the world at this point in history, that it will soon become clear to the US just exactly how alone she is in this world. Even here in the UK, don't delude yourself that you have a staunch ally, as in a recent Guardian newspaper poll 83% of those questioned said they remained resolutely against any war. (Or at least they are against any action conducted outside the auspices of the UN).

What we are talking about here is international agreements, treaties and partnerships - and if the US wishes to ignore these, do not be surprised when she experiences the vociferous condemnation of the world.

Is the price for glory, war and oil really so worthwhile that you would be willing to risk everything?

Q

raid517

Again in your last post, you miss the issue JF. Whether you want it that way or not, this has become a debate about whether the US wishes to be considered a part of the international community or not. This is the point that many countries are making right now. There is no question in the event of a war that Turkey would be defended (although she is already hardly defenceless, with something like the 3rd lagest military in the world). That is not the issue. The issue is what America sees as her role in the world. In effect this is a very open and public attempt to reign her back into the international fold. Should she resist these attempts then yes, I agree treaties with the US over Nato and the UN should be counted as worthless and the US should be excluded from them until she has reconsidered her current course. Once more this is about partnership, it is not a master servant relationship as the US so ardently appears to wish it to be. No country should be expected to behave in a servile way in what was until recently regarded as a genuine and working partnership. The US needs to recognise that she has responsibilities in the world other than to herself.

Q

Asuka

<snip rest about the USA wanting to go at war with Iraq at any rate, if others want it or not>

Hi there, Mr. "Braindead language that no sane person is using" Fox. (scnr)

This is "Germany and it's ilk" speaking. Yes, we know that you want a war with Iraq at any rate, regardless what anyone else thinks about it, and that you'd really like to carpet bomb etc. Iraq already yesterday. After all, making war is the only thing you're really good at - ok, that and bossing other countries around. That had quite an effect on the major part on the majority of the UN. But just because those countries crapped their pants and gave their ok with their tail between her legs, doesn't mean we will either. To your disadvantage, We (and the other "ilk") are not so easily intimidated, and thus we'll still go on preventing you from having your little war with Iraq which you want so badly. Just go on with your current arrogant attitude, and you'll be presented the bill for it soon enough
Geez, does this arrogant attitude of yours make you really so blind that you don't ever learn? All this "Holier-Than-Thou"-behavior already got you in trouble more than once, most notifiable incident to be named being the WTC attack. Yes, I think as well that the ones responsible for this should be cooked in hot oil, quartered and then fed to the dogs. However, this should've been a warning to you that there's something seriously wrong with your attitude when you got someone that mad that they go at such lenghts to do such a horrible thing. You should've questioned yourself about it, but no - it just can't be that you, the absolutely infallible USA, made anything wrong! Just how dare these insolent worms just even suggest at such a thing!? So, you go on and continue on your merry way without changing the least bit
You still go on behaving like you were the Ruler of the universe (perhaps watched He-man one time too much?), and if any country out there might pose even the smallest threath at you, the high-and-mighty US, you'll simply have a little war and crush these wee insects.
Wake up now before it's too late! Realize that your current actions will do you no good at all, the only result will be that your already not-quite-so-good international reputation goes down the drain even more! Countries that are already pissed at you for your Holier-than-thou-behavior will only get much more pissed from that. If you go on like that, it probably won't be too long until all the anger boils over yet again, and then you'll have another WTC-like attack, on a possibly much larger scale even. Was one WTC-like incident not enough? Think about it.

This was just a friendly warning from "Germany and the ilk". If you go on like this, you'll have to live with all of the nasty consequences, but don't you come crying to Mommy then, and don't say we didn't warn you.

raid517

Well I can see the point your making dude, erm which I think is that you are angry, but maybe you could tone it down a tad? Generally it is best to argue a point with at least a little supporting material, otherwise it does just sound like your flaming. Just a thought....

Q

ByteMe

Hey JavaFox, you live down here in phoenix eh? I'll buy you a beer sometime (if you're old enough to drink). I don't think I'll be around phoenix much longer.

JavaFox

Yes, I understand that, but my point is this: should Germany, France, and Belgium (I originally typed "Germany and its ilk" because typing out the names of all three nations is tedious; there is nothing inherently negative or derogatory with the word "ilk") express their dislike of American foreign policy by putting Turkey's defense on the line? Is this a proper bargaining chip? I'd say no. And the 16 other members would also say no.

I think you're forgetting that the vast majority of NATO is with America on this one. In this regard, America isn't the minority, nor is it "the master." 84% of NATO (16 out of 19) realizes that it has an obligation to protect its allies. It is Germany, France, and Belgium that need to be reigned into the realm of reasonable diplomacy. Those countries have every right to be anti-war, but being a part of the NATO alliance means protecting member nations.

I see what point you're making. But it is irrelevant here. I'm not talking about "The Will of US/UK versus The Will of the UN." I am talking about the will of Berlin, Paris, and Brussels versus the charter, relevance, AND will of NATO.

This isn't about what America wants. It's about what NATO is charged to do. And it's about what all but three members want.

ByteMe

This leads to what do you think the USA will do to "punish" these countries?

I would offer a few suggestions.... but I think they would be outside the forumn rules.

merry

Was Turkey attacked yet? Is there any war going on there?

Nice counting. What percent of the UN is for a military action in Iraq? 2% or so?

So basically you're making light conversation about something that has no context.

ToshiroOC

How dictatorial... if you disagree, we kill you?

bluelight

They have already started the "punishing" by announcing that they will withdraw troops from German and by this causing economic damage to Germany.I think Germany can handle this but.....This is the way it works.Either one does as one is told and evrything is fine and dandy or you follow your own counciounness and.....well...


Finally....I hqave written it twice before and ill write it a last time:

Both Germany and France has stated that:

If Turkey is attacked they will support them as it applies to any member of Nato.


This issue is not about that even if the American government wants everyone to think so.

This issue is about Usa`s war planning.

Nothing else.


BlueLight

FuNsTeR

i hafta laugh at americans like Java foxjust because America says it is right does not make you right your President is hell bent on war and when a spanner is thrown in he starts his how dare you attitude of a spoilt brat not getting his own way .... he will not be satisfied till the Usa flag is flying from every pole in the world and if that fails setting the world alight will be his revenge ... greets to Germany , France, Belguim,Russia and China for standing up to the International bully that is America

JavaFox

If they have said that, they haven't said it publically. The only thing I can judge them by is their actions. And by vetoing a resolution to deploy defensive technologies to Turkey, I can only conclude that they will not defend Turkey.

Can you prove otherwise?

JavaFox

So we should only be reactive? Why have defensive technology at all, then? Why can't we just build it as we need it? Why even try?

Actually, 100% of the Security Council passed Resolution 1441. You should skim the resolution; it isn't long. At any rate, in addition to reaffirming the right of "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement [...] relevant resolutions," the text of 1441 mentions that it operates under Chapter VII (NOT Chapter VI) of the UN Charter.

What does this mean?

Chapter VII authorizes the Security Council and its member nations to "take [...] action by air, sea, or land [...] as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action[s] may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." Chapter VII further affirms that "The action required to carry out the decisions of