Iraq seized OTAN (Part II)
In Part I, we discussed how Operation Iraqi Freedom drove a dagger into the amoral soul of the United Nations. During our UN thrust and parries, we pricked our Atlantic partners. Since NATO was forged, it has been wounded many times by world events.
If the Atlantic alliance "withers on the vine," it will be events in Europe, not the greater Middle East, that decides its fate. (I hold out little hope that OTAN will die. Bureaucracies, such as OTAN and the UN, are not easy to kill.)
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1951), European integration began. The Maastricht Treaty(1992) created the European Union and established plans for a consolidate European defense force.
On October 29th, the European Commission signed the European Constitution; now, it must be ratified by the 25 Member States of the EU. The EU constitution quotes Thucydides: "Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."
We will soon know, if the "greatest number" includes the citizens of Europe, or if the governing elite will decide their collective fate. As it stands, only 10 of 25 nations have agreed to allow their citizens to vote on constitutional ratification. Notably, Germany, Belgium, and Sweden have retained "power" in the hands the ruling minority, and they will not allow their citizens to vote. (True Euro-style democracy at work.)
The EU constitution has several key provisions: (1) Article 9 establishes the "principle of proportionality" in voting; that is, the voices of more populous nations will be amplified in EU decision making; (2) Article 10 establishes the "primacy of the Constitution over law of Member States;" and (3) Article 15 establishes a "common defense policy."
Forty years ago, Fernand Braudel, History of Civilizations, discussed integration of Europe. Braudel wrote the single most difficult task was resolving the lingua franca issue, which he noted was not being discussed as an impediment to integration. (It's still not being discussed in any language.)
With the Maastricht Treaty, European and American political and military leaders became concerned that a European army, independent of NATO, would drive a wedge into a weakened Alliance, suffering from the lost of its declared foe, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
With the development of the Eurocorps, American political and military leaders, of both parties, realized our citizens (or taxpayers) would grow increasingly resistant to maintaining a large troop contingent in Europe, so President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton were tepidly supportive of their initiative.
Jonathan Clarke, speaking at the Cato Institute, harshly criticized both Bush-41 and Clinton for their "myopic hostility" to European defense initiative.
During Clinton's presidency, we became involved in 2 Balkans wars: Croatian-Bosnian War (1991-1994) and the Kosovo War (1999). Although, no NATO member had been attacked, which would have invoked our treaty obligations, nor were there any strategic national interests involved, which might have provided a justification for our involvement, we went to war because Europeans lacked the wherewithal to end these conflicts diplomatically or militarily.
Both wars fueled continental urgency for the Eurocorps. In September 1999, Robert Wilkie, writing in Parameters, quotes NATO Secretary-General George Robertson: "Deploying a force of even a few tens of thousands, that is less than 2 percent of the total military personnel available to us, stretched our collective resources."
One month after Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched, Charles Kupchan, writing in the Financial Times, said the "diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end ... [the] alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad."
May 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about the matter: "that differences over the war in Iraq 'are behind us now. Now we have to come together again' to help the people of Iraq." Powell went on say, "Europe doesn't want to be considered only a checkbook, and the United States doesn't want to be seen as just a juggernaut. We do not have to work together the same way every time."
October 2003, Ronald Asmus, writing in Foreign Affairs, said "the manner in which the administration chose to topple Saddam Hussein -- led to a spectacular political train wreck across the Atlantic. Somewhere between Kabul and Baghdad, then, the United States and Europe lost each other."
December 2003, the China Daily news wrote: "Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the world is still waiting to see the outcome on the two main battlefields: Iraq and trans-Atlantic relations."
June 2004, Lawrence Korb said Americans think of NATO when they think of the Atlantic alliance; whereas, "for European nations, like France, the Atlantic alliance is increasingly coming to mean the European Union."
Just this week, we read in UK's Telegraph, France, Germany, and Spain have formed a "triple axis" to limit Prime Minister Blair continental influence, to staunch supporter of the strengthening of the Atlantic alliance. The Telegraph writes: "Jacques Chirac, the French president and a harsh critic of the war in Iraq, brushed aside appeals for better transatlantic ties after George W Bush's re-election triumph and instead called for a stronger EU to confront Washington."
Just one year ago, we read, in the BBC News, Jacques Chirac said Europe's defence capability should be "completely consistent with our Nato commitments."
In August, President Bush announced plans to withdraw 70,000 troops, and their dependents, from Europe. (Long overdue!)
One other issue is further splintering the Atlantic alliance. In 1987, NATO member Turkey applied for accession into the European Union. Not surprisingly, France is opposed to Turkey's inclusion in the EU. (Where this ends is anyone's guess, but my money is on: Turkey will not be allowed to join to appease Gaul.)
I have maintained for many years, long before September 11th, that it was time for Europe to stop depending on the American taxpayers to provide their national defense, it ws time for Europe to spend the necessary resources to ensure a peaceful and stable continent, and for the United States to end our involvement in NATO.
That belief was reaffirmed in 1999, in the midst of our air campaign in Kosovo, it was widely reported that France was providing targeting data to our enemy.
It is time for OTAN to die!!
If the Atlantic alliance "withers on the vine," it will be events in Europe, not the greater Middle East, that decides its fate. (I hold out little hope that OTAN will die. Bureaucracies, such as OTAN and the UN, are not easy to kill.)
With the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1951), European integration began. The Maastricht Treaty(1992) created the European Union and established plans for a consolidate European defense force.
On October 29th, the European Commission signed the European Constitution; now, it must be ratified by the 25 Member States of the EU. The EU constitution quotes Thucydides: "Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."
We will soon know, if the "greatest number" includes the citizens of Europe, or if the governing elite will decide their collective fate. As it stands, only 10 of 25 nations have agreed to allow their citizens to vote on constitutional ratification. Notably, Germany, Belgium, and Sweden have retained "power" in the hands the ruling minority, and they will not allow their citizens to vote. (True Euro-style democracy at work.)
The EU constitution has several key provisions: (1) Article 9 establishes the "principle of proportionality" in voting; that is, the voices of more populous nations will be amplified in EU decision making; (2) Article 10 establishes the "primacy of the Constitution over law of Member States;" and (3) Article 15 establishes a "common defense policy."
Forty years ago, Fernand Braudel, History of Civilizations, discussed integration of Europe. Braudel wrote the single most difficult task was resolving the lingua franca issue, which he noted was not being discussed as an impediment to integration. (It's still not being discussed in any language.)
With the Maastricht Treaty, European and American political and military leaders became concerned that a European army, independent of NATO, would drive a wedge into a weakened Alliance, suffering from the lost of its declared foe, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
With the development of the Eurocorps, American political and military leaders, of both parties, realized our citizens (or taxpayers) would grow increasingly resistant to maintaining a large troop contingent in Europe, so President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton were tepidly supportive of their initiative.
Jonathan Clarke, speaking at the Cato Institute, harshly criticized both Bush-41 and Clinton for their "myopic hostility" to European defense initiative.
During Clinton's presidency, we became involved in 2 Balkans wars: Croatian-Bosnian War (1991-1994) and the Kosovo War (1999). Although, no NATO member had been attacked, which would have invoked our treaty obligations, nor were there any strategic national interests involved, which might have provided a justification for our involvement, we went to war because Europeans lacked the wherewithal to end these conflicts diplomatically or militarily.
Both wars fueled continental urgency for the Eurocorps. In September 1999, Robert Wilkie, writing in Parameters, quotes NATO Secretary-General George Robertson: "Deploying a force of even a few tens of thousands, that is less than 2 percent of the total military personnel available to us, stretched our collective resources."
One month after Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched, Charles Kupchan, writing in the Financial Times, said the "diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end ... [the] alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad."
May 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about the matter: "that differences over the war in Iraq 'are behind us now. Now we have to come together again' to help the people of Iraq." Powell went on say, "Europe doesn't want to be considered only a checkbook, and the United States doesn't want to be seen as just a juggernaut. We do not have to work together the same way every time."
October 2003, Ronald Asmus, writing in Foreign Affairs, said "the manner in which the administration chose to topple Saddam Hussein -- led to a spectacular political train wreck across the Atlantic. Somewhere between Kabul and Baghdad, then, the United States and Europe lost each other."
December 2003, the China Daily news wrote: "Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the world is still waiting to see the outcome on the two main battlefields: Iraq and trans-Atlantic relations."
June 2004, Lawrence Korb said Americans think of NATO when they think of the Atlantic alliance; whereas, "for European nations, like France, the Atlantic alliance is increasingly coming to mean the European Union."
Just this week, we read in UK's Telegraph, France, Germany, and Spain have formed a "triple axis" to limit Prime Minister Blair continental influence, to staunch supporter of the strengthening of the Atlantic alliance. The Telegraph writes: "Jacques Chirac, the French president and a harsh critic of the war in Iraq, brushed aside appeals for better transatlantic ties after George W Bush's re-election triumph and instead called for a stronger EU to confront Washington."
Just one year ago, we read, in the BBC News, Jacques Chirac said Europe's defence capability should be "completely consistent with our Nato commitments."
In August, President Bush announced plans to withdraw 70,000 troops, and their dependents, from Europe. (Long overdue!)
One other issue is further splintering the Atlantic alliance. In 1987, NATO member Turkey applied for accession into the European Union. Not surprisingly, France is opposed to Turkey's inclusion in the EU. (Where this ends is anyone's guess, but my money is on: Turkey will not be allowed to join to appease Gaul.)
I have maintained for many years, long before September 11th, that it was time for Europe to stop depending on the American taxpayers to provide their national defense, it ws time for Europe to spend the necessary resources to ensure a peaceful and stable continent, and for the United States to end our involvement in NATO.
That belief was reaffirmed in 1999, in the midst of our air campaign in Kosovo, it was widely reported that France was providing targeting data to our enemy.
It is time for OTAN to die!!
posted by Tony Harrison at 2:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home