France lobbying against UK for NATO Second-in-command position

[recceguy]

A French military mission has been actively lobbying in Washington recently, that NATO Deputy Commander position should be manned by their country, instead of United Kingdom as it has been the case since WWII. All that linked to incoming Brexit and future position of UK in Europe, of course.

An article in the Times yesterday was quite elaborate in convincing the (British) readers that it shouldn't happen, and that UK was still the leading military power in Europe (despite the lack of nuclear bombers, independent nuclear forces, maritime patrol aircraft, aircraft carriers, overseas bases..)

The French by contrast were pointing their own capabilities, and especially the ones missing above, their African operations throughout the continent, overseas territories, and general international commitments for the past 40 years. Be sure that our Parliament voting against military action Syria (August 30th, 2013) didn't improve our perception as a reliable ally by the US, to the contrary of France (BTW, the French found themselves suddenly isolated with their bombers ready to go, as B. Obama also decided to back-pedal ...)

Syria: John Kerry slaps Britain in face as he calls France 'oldest allies' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10277510/Syria-John-Kerry-slaps-Britain-in-face-as-he-calls-France-oldest-allies.html)

Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (NATO) has been French five-stars General Denis Mercier since March 2015.

[beardy]

The link in the article dates to 2013 and is technically correct. I believe that France sided with the anti colonial sentiments of the settlers in what became the USA when they waged war against the UK. The fact that the UK was also engaged in a war against the colonial aspirations of a French Emperor is not coincidental.

[ORAC]

Did they take some "Freedom Fries" with them?

[Chugalug2]

Sounds as though we are being sent to the back of the queue by the Obama administration. Oh, wait!...

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Admittedly, the UK does have some capability shortfalls in the short term. However, it has other capabilities that are highly valued by the US.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Some people have very short memories, so here is one I remember and found again on the web:

"In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

"Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"

That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.

So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.

DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”

Great Allies indeed. IMHOP the French have done more to undermine NATO than any other member country.

[Herod]

Two things come to mind.
Firstly, France does not spend the recommended 2% of GDP on defence.
Secondly, if the EU Army ever comes into existence, will France have a conflict of interest?

[teeteringhead]

As ever, one recalls the wisdom of Sir Humphrey Appleby. When asked by Jim Hacker what was the purpose of NATO, he replied:

"It's threefold Prime Minister: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the French down!" :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Secretary Kerry seems to have forgotten the quasi war with France in the late 1700's, after the French King (Louis XVI, who helped us to spite the Brits) was gone and the French Republic decided to start commandeering American merchant vessels on the high seas. He may also have forgotten the French decision to step out of the NATO integrated military command structure in the 1960's -- DeGaulle in one of his lovelyl Gaulist moments -- staying out for 40ish years, and only recently (under Sarkozy) coming back into NATO as "in but in" rather than "in but out." Truth moment: I was and am glad that they are back in.

It's not hard to see France as "our oldest ally" when its convenient for them to be, eh? (OK, maybe that's overly cynical). At least they drive on the correct side of the road. :E

I am glad that we are working together on stuff with the French, since we are allies.


Secretary Kerry making light of our special relationship with the Brits is right out of Obama's playbook. Gee, there's a shocker.

[BATCO]

Should (or once) the EU gets its operational military HQ, the 'Berlin arrangement' (whereby DSACEUR uses NATO structures as part of an EU-led operation) becomes a little overtaken.

NATO-EU cooperation is moving forward under other frameworks.

If true though (the story in Times put up by the OP), then the saying 'one can rely on ones enemies; it's friends that need watching' springs to mind.

Batco

[Mil-26Man]

"It's threefold Prime Minister: to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the French down!"

Funny, only what he actually said was "...and the Germans down."

[PDR1]

Maybe, but he also said the the UK needed a strategic nuclear deterent to guard us against the French who (he pointed out) we had been at war with more than any other nation over the preceding 500 years.

I'm not convinced that the Foreign Office has yet changed this view...

PDR

[racedo]

If the French move keeps David Cameron from having ANY role in NATO above Tea Boy then what is the downside ?

[recceguy]

Admittedly, the UK does have some capability shortfalls in the short term. However, it has other capabilities that are highly valued by the US
... yes : being English-speakers - but for that we also have the Irish, the Fijians and the Kenyans.

For those who still figure there is a "special" relationship (albeit a little bit one-way) :

Syria crisis: 'Britain is no longer a world power' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10278336/Syria-crisis-Britain-is-no-longer-a-world-power.html) (Senator Mac Cain at his best)

Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. on Falkland Dispute | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute.html)

So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II. DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”
Well, it was usually difficult to embarrass General de Gaulle, but why not ?

60 000 soldiers buried in France ? Sure - but now balance that with 70 000 French civilians killed by US and UK bombers during WWII with whole cities being wiped out, like Calais, Royan, St Lô, Rouen, Le Havre without justification, then 20 000 French servicemen who lost their lives from US/British action in Syria/Morocco/ Mers-el-Kebir/Madagascar, not forgetting the French troops fighting the Japanese in Laos, for which US General Chennault in Yunnan had orders from US President not to supply them with anything (Roosevelt was against French presence in Indochina)

Who said "great allies " ?

[ORAC]

Well, DeGaulle always said that one of the things he admired most about the British was having the sense to always fight their wars in someone else's country.

[ShotOne]

Assuming it's true, why would we be upset? A far bigger problem is member states showing no interest in leadership (or followership) in any aspect of membership...most notably including, for many years, France!

[MACH2NUMBER]

Come now Recceguy, you are a bit out of your own context here. A total body count of all wars proves nothing and Dean only refers to US dead. My point remains the French not only booted NATO out of France, but for many, many years did not actively participate in NATO. Surely this is more pertinent to the thread that you started.

[air pig]

Was it not written outside the RN base in Singapore, 'Enemies of the Royal Navy, first the French second The War Department and third, enemy of the day.

[bobward]

I was wondering just how many bases the Americans have with their good buddies / belle amies the French.......

[Lonewolf_50]

...60 000 soldiers buried in France ? Sure - but now balance that with 70 000 French civilians killed by US and UK bombers during WWII with whole cities being wiped out, like Calais, Royan, St Lô, Rouen, Le Havre without justification ... Do you wish that we had not come across the channel and instead left you to the tender mercies of your German occupiers? Maybe President Obama can issue an apology for doing that before he leaves office. :confused: As to Operation Torch, your precious Vichy French leadership chose to take that stand. At that point, fight's on. Yeah, war sucks on a lot of levels.

This kind of back biting is so pointless, non?

[Heathrow Harry]

I can't see a problem TBH

In a lot of ways having a country in #2 which is closer to the front line isn't a bad thing - they can't do a Dunkirk when the Russians reach Lille after all

[ORAC]

No, but they can do a Vichy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France).....

[recceguy]

they can't do a Dunkirk

You mean that story, when the British Army (BEF) made such a quick runner abandoning positions overnight without informing the French and the Belgians...

On 20 May, the BEF sent Brigadier Gerald Whitfield to Dunkirk to start evacuating unnecessary personnel. Overwhelmed by what he later described as "a somewhat alarming movement towards Dunkirk by both officers and men", due to a shortage of food and water, he had to send many along without thoroughly checking their credentials. Even officers ordered to stay behind to aid the evacuation disappeared onto the boats

So nicely said....

[ExRAFRadar]

I'm sure some of the men doing the 'quick runner' as you so nicely put it were back on the beaches 4 years later after having seen the World thanks to the annoying fact that the Germans were invading various bits of it.

And then liberating France with their blood.

By the way we can all cut and paste from the Wiki entry on Dunkirk. Do some serious research and come back. But for starters from that same Wiki entry:

"More than 100,000 evacuated French troops were quickly and efficiently shuttled to camps in various parts of south-western England, where they were temporarily lodged before being repatriated.[103] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#cite_note-FOOTNOTELooseley2005-104) British ships ferried French troops to Brest, Cherbourg, and other ports in Normandy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy) and Brittany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany), although only about half of the repatriated troops were deployed against the Germans before the surrender of France."

So the French pulled their men back and only half were thrown into battle. Guess that was the British fault as well.

But like recceguy I too have done no serious research but look at Wiki

[MACH2NUMBER]

Recceguy,
You still don't get this. I personally have a family who suffered death and injury in defence of la Belle France in both wars. You insult their sacrifice. What I read here is just nationalistic posturing, of the De Gaulle nature, without any depth of reason. Please resume your idyll on Clipperton!

[Heathrow Harry]

The French lost god knows how many people in WW1 which kept the Kaiser in his place - the Britsh were there early but not in equivalent numbers and the Americans turned up late again with reasonable numbers. Without that sacrifice german would have been spoken more widely 25 years before Hitler

We've all fought too many wars in Europe and lost far too many men - on all sides

[Dougie M]

The French lobby is groundless. The North Atlantic association was to counter the Soviet threat and only came into its own when the Warsaw Pact formed in the 50s. It preceded the EU by 20 years and has no link with the European Army which the French are so keen to lead. The absence of French forces from NATO for 30 years was obvious to me during the Kosovo war when the "invited guests" spent all day copying the NATO War Plan onto discs and sending them to Paris from where, spookily, the Serbs obtained the targetting programme. The U.S.A. takes their "oldest ally" as second ranked nation in NATO at our peril.

[pax britanica]

The US always sides with the big battalions or the money

So in Europe for a while that was us BUT since last years its clearer than ever that their long held view of deal with Germany on economics. France on politics : either way we in Uk will go along (poodle fashion) while the other EU nations will side with either Germany or France and we as non Europeans will have zero influence on the rest of the Eu.

So after we leave the EU what grounds have we got for claiming we are the pre- eminent military power in Europe except what we did in the cold war which you may have noticed is so far in the past it is becoming fashionable again.

Anyway, from the way Trump speaks the only military power in Europe he is interested in is Russia and with the Brexit and Trump results they have done more to weaken NATO than all their past military might ever achieved

[A_Van]

Dougie M,

You wrote:
"The North Atlantic association was to counter the Soviet threat and only came into its own when the Warsaw Pact formed in the 50s."

This is how disinformation starts :-) No time to type a couple of words in a search engine? I thought this stuff was being studied in mil. academies worldwide...

NATO was formed in 1949 and it was the first NATO secretary general to say (informally) that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

Then very soon the next major steps were undertaken because of the Korean war.

After Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, the Soviet Union also applied for a membership (in 1954) because formally it was said that NATO was not considering USSR as an enemy, but the suggestion was, of course, declined.

Warsaw pact was signed only in 1955, a week after the NATO's second expansion when Germany joined the club. I think it was nothing but a nervous reply in a sense "we can't take it any more", but it could be justified by the fact that Germany was again openly on the other side, and plans like "Dropshot" were getting closer to the reality.


As for the main subject, from outside NATO it's strange to hear that "who is 2nd in the hierarchy" is an issue. Does it really matter? Look at another chatterbox club - the EU and CEC. There many people now there at high management positions from the countries that many others can hardly find on the map.

[Heathrow Harry]

It was only WEST Germany that joined the Club Van.... EAST Germany wasn't asked ...................

And as for status when you are pemanently a supporting player little things like titles mean a lot....................

[Pontius Navigator]

A Van, I read Dougie M's quote differently. I read it to mean that although NATO existed from 1949 and did not include the FGR, it only came in to its own in the mid 50s.

I agree with your timing and POV, just that the WP gave it a newer focus. You mention Dropshot, do you think the KGB/GRU were aware at that time? I can also envisage a POV that the USSR arms race could be seen as a defensive one.

[A_Van]

HH, PN:

OK, the words "came into its own" may be read in different context. Somebody may say that the process is complete when the whole Europe joins :-)

But it is clear that in early 50's UK was a great power, and even if NATO would consist of US and UK only, the USSR was way weaker. Conversely, the USSR's satellite countries did not represent any serious military power and, perhaps more important, would not fight when the bell rings. It was understood here. In reality, they just allowed to use their territories. Thus, IMHO, creation of WP was nothing but a political show and western military analysts just laughed.

A good question where KGB/GRU knew about the US and UK plans to massively bomb USSR in late 40's and early 50's. In the Russian literature (including memoires of veterans) it is said that they did. I doubt that the details were known, but obviuosly it was enough to know in general that such plans existed. Recall they had lads like Kim Philby working for them.

[ORAC]

As a matter of military history may I point out the Western Union Defence Organisation which was formed in March 1948 and consisted of the British, French, Dutch, Luxembourg and Belgian forces based on the Treaty of Brussels against the communist threat when the division of Europe became evident with the Russian forces failure to leave the Eastern European states. This evolved into NATO when the USA and others were persuaded of the threat. It was only in 1951 that NATO took over the WUDO tasks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Union_Defence_Organization

In 1954 the WEU was formed as a means to permit the rearmament of Germany and Italy, at which point they could also join NATO.

It was only in 2009 that the WUDO tasks were taken over by the EU in the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Brussels was terminated in 2010 and the WEU in 2011.

[West Coast]

the Americans turned up late again

If your lot could take care of your wars and genocides, we'd not be late.

[recceguy]

.. during the Kosovo war when the "invited guests" spent all day copying the NATO War Plan onto discs and sending them to Paris from where, spookily, the Serbs obtained the targetting programme.
There was more direct and efficient links (we can suggest it, 18 years after, can we ?)

Alll that to create a Mafia-sponsored micro-state in the heart of Europe, with a huge american base on it (Camp Bondsteel...) If Russia had not recovered Crimea on time, there would have been similar ones there to check the Black Sea. Now they have to content themselves with exercises in Ukraine (5 km inside the country, so courageous)
Thanks all for the informative posts about the origins of NATO in the 50s... but how strange now is it that after the Warsaw Pact had disappeared, NATO kept on expanding so much ?

Anyway, 6 days to wait now.... and maybe, probably much of this discussion will have to be reset.
D. Trump teams are currently busy arranging a meeting with Porochenko - should be next February, 30th or 31st....

A_Van, I usually find all your posts very interesting

[Heathrow Harry]

"A good question where KGB/GRU knew about the US and UK plans to massively bomb USSR in late 40's and early 50's. In the Russian literature (including memoires of veterans) it is said that they did. I doubt that the details were known, but obviuosly it was enough to know in general that such plans existed. Recall they had lads like Kim Philby working for them."

I think they had chapter and verse Van - but it was Maclean who was important in this context . Maclean was First Secretary in the UK Washington Embassy and saw almost everything flowing between the two countries

[Just This Once...]

... but how strange now is it that after the Warsaw Pact had disappeared, NATO kept on expanding so much ?


Yes, so very strange that a collection of countries would want to be part of a collective organisation, on a voluntary basis, rather than an enforced Pact where one member holds a gun to the head of all the other members. Not forgetting the metaphorical gun was fired at Pact members on more than one occasion when the controlling country didn't appreciate what was going on.

Really, comparing NATO with the Warsaw Pact is just plain silly, akin to comparing Bupa to concentration camps.

:=

[A_Van]

I love your metaphor, but elaborating further on Bupa it looks like Trump is going to shake some of its lazy residents/patients enjoying free dinners regularly served by Uncle Sam and suggest them to either pay the bill with no discount or get out. Would be interesting to see how all this will settle down.

Trump worries Nato with 'obsolete' comment - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38635181)

[Just This Once...]

Indeed, NATO remains a partnership of nations willing and able to help each other. If countries are no longer willing or able to help each other then things will change.

[recceguy]

And as from yesterday it seems things are really going to change (see D.T interview...) even if the out-going US administration has put in place some last-day measures like the legal status of their soldiers in the Baltic States, to put them out of the reach of the local law. Just wondering how much they had to pay the local governments to accept such a thing - exactly why the american soldiers have been so much appreciated for years in Philippines, Japan...

[Lonewolf_50]

recceguy, Status of Forces agreements are common and have been around for decades. They are worked out government to government. For a recent example, the SoFA with Iraq could not be worked out to both parties satisfaction (2010 ish) so the bulk of our forces were removed as a result. You might be surprised at how appreciated American forces are in Japan; Okinawa is an interesting sub case since the local people still have axes to grind with the government in Tokyo and used the Americans based in Okinawa as yet another excuse.


The American and Philippine governments reached a joint decision a quarter of a century ago about changing our relationship, led by President Aquino's formal move to tell the American government that it was time for a change. So, it was changed and we turned over the bases. You are a bit late to the party on that one, amigo.

At some point, you might want to get that chip off of your shoulder. It's not a good look.

[jindabyne]

I am Conservative, but I sincerely hope that David Cameron never holds public office in the UK, ever again. Being now almost 73, what does it matter to me? It does.

[ShotOne]

It's quite unlikely he'll seek another elected office but just out of interest, why single Cameron out in the context of this thread? Unlike most NATO member-state leaders he consistently ensured the UK contributed it's fair share to NATO, both financially and militarily. Are you suggesting the nice Mr Corbyn will show greater support for NATO?

[recceguy]

local people used the Americans based in Okinawa as yet another excuse
Well, maybe the Okinawa "locals" - as you say - had some reasons for that ... ("yet another excuse" - sounds like talking to immature children)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/okinawa-responses-to-rape-and-murder-by-former-us-marine/5528882

The American and Philippine governments reached a joint decision a quarter of a century ago about changing our relationship, led by President Aquino's formal move to tell the American government that it was time for a change. So, it was changed and we turned over the bases. You are a bit late to the party on that one
Consider a little bit recent President Duterte declarations about US military presence and joint exercises, and you will see who is "late" ... ....

Philippines' Duterte to U.S. over aid: 'Bye-bye America' (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/17/philippines-duterte-us-over-aid-bye-bye-america/95557384/)

I think you live in a world which is more than 25 years old. Time to open your eyes. Fortunately in my country we got rid of similar bases 50 years ago, thus avoiding the associated crime rate and "SoFA" agreements.

[Expatrick]

It's quite unlikely he'll seek another elected office but just out of interest, why single Cameron out in the context of this thread? Unlike most NATO member-state leaders he consistently ensured the UK contributed it's fair share to NATO, both financially and militarily. Are you suggesting the nice Mr Corbyn will show greater support for NATO?

Mr Cameron will only do what Mr Cameron thinks is good for Mr Cameron.

[Lonewolf_50]

recceguy, the US has bilateral agreements with over one hundred nations regarding mil-to-mil relationships and aid. Each is a separate agreement with that nation. When the government changes, as it just did in the PI recently, it comes as no surprise if the latest government wishes to change or adjust that relationship. That's politics as usual. I am up to date, thank you very much. What Duterte is doing is similar to what Aquino was doing back in '91. All that differs is that Aquino had a little more class than the current guy, who uses bombast to good effect: no surprise, it's a common political tool. I expect that our latest election will see an increase in bombast coming from our capital on a variety of topics, as Mr Trump looks to be cut from similar cloth to Mr Duterte: use of trolling as a political tool is a habit.

As to your being proud of France being "in but out" of NATO for four decades, but continually resorting to the whinge about "French is an Official language in OTAN" with noses dripping all the while, I'll write off the chip on your shoulder as stereotypical chauvinism.


I estimate that you know why the Brits still give you all the needle. You've earned it. I still like France, and I am glad that our countries are still allies, regardless of what a grumpy old man on the internet kvetches about.