USA, Iraq and the demise of old NATO

[ORAC]

Discuss,

In the old days, NATO was based around defending Germany. The Fulda Gap etc. That gave the Germans, effectively, veto power on how things were done, commonality of systems.

Came the day, the wall came down, the emphasis changed. Oh My! I cannot tell you the number of meetings I've gone to where (as in the old days) the Germans pound the table with a shoe and insist it "cannot be done this way", "this is not acceptable" etc.

The French, in the meantime, had not participated, except as observers. Suddenly they wanted back in but made unacceptable demands such a French AFSOUTH in charge of the 6th Fleet etc.

This, plus the rise of the EU and the (idea) of Europe as a counterweight to the USA (militarily), seems to have turned their heads.

It should be pointed out that NTO has been enlarged by several eastern European nation s who thank the USA for pushing their membership, reply on the USA for their protection (trust France & Germany. Big Joke!!) and future equipment.

Now, over Iraq, the French & German's are backing away from supporting the USA. You could (joke) say this is for moral reasons. it is (actually) for poltical reasons covering present and future contracts in the region etc.

The U.S.A will proceed anyway, but will rely on the UK and (surprisingly?) the backing of the new NATO members.

Question? is the end of NATO as we know it, are a rebirth as a more active, interventionist organisation with France, Germany (and perhaps Italy) being marginalised?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday dismissed French and German insistence that "everything must be done to avoid war" with Iraq, saying most European countries stand with the United States in its campaign to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Germany and France represent "old Europe," and NATO's expansion in recent years means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east," Rumsfeld said....

[rivetjoint]

Indeed, just what is NATOs role today and tomorrow?
Are the only enemies actually only enemies of America?

[BlueWolf]

Hmm.

I think perhaps that Europe has grown too big too fast, and in so doing, has outgrown the original concept behind its formation.

It was the European Economic Community, EEC; then it became the European Community, EC; and now it is EU, the European Union.

Next, presumably, it is intended that it will become the United States of Europe. USE?

As its membership has grown, this increasingly vast and disparate conglomeration of nations, of peoples, languages, and religions, has struggled to retain the unity which saw its founding members come together in pursuit of a common goal.

As the membership of Europe swells, and as the focus of the new grouping naturally changes accordingly, and as Europe in its new form comes to see the United States more as a competitor than a partner, so the relevance of NATO as we have known it will likely diminish.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and the emergence of the United States as the world's only superpower, NATO has already largely ceased to have any real relevance to the United States. The US can, does, and will, act unilaterally in world and military affairs, in respect of its own national interest.

The next generation will see the rise of China as a second world superpower, one capable of threatening the economic, political, and military dominance of the West. This may prompt the inception of new treaties between Europe and the US, but I believe that the structure of Europe as we know it will alter greatly before that happens.

I think Europe as it is becoming will fractionate from the inside, into perhaps as many as three different blocs.

Britain, Scandinavia, Benelux, could form the core of one bloc.

France and Germany may anchor a second.

A third European grouping might centre around some of the newer members, nations of the former Eastern Bloc.

I would speculate that Portugal, and possibly Spain, would associate more comfortably with the British faction, and that Italy would feel more at home with the French and Germans.

Whatever happens, one thing remains true, and that is that treaties exist because of the prevailing conditions of the day. The world has changed since NATO was formed, and it continues to change.

I have no doubt that the future will include treaties and co-operation between the peoples of Europe and the peoples of North America; but that said, I also believe it likely that NATO as we know it is nearing its expiry date.

[freddoir]

ORAC,

The garlic eaters are outside the military framework of NATO (flogging ATOs and generally pissing off the Americans didn't help their cause) these days so no surprises if they feel no guilt in giving Sheriff Bush Jr the FO card. Don't be too amazed though when the French military pitch up for the day of the race because, just like every other bunch of professional military personnel, they are up for it as well. As for the box-heads, national stigma and constitutional nightmares prevent them from sending a deployment of troops outside their own borders for anything other than peace-keeping duites. Even with all Georges' and Tonys' rhetoric this Gulf scrap can only be described as coercion or compellance. Hence the sausage-eaters reluctance to support any arab bashing. Knowing the German psych as I do they would be embarrased and ashamed to get involved in anything that could be remotely described as aggressive to another nation. Looking at it from that perspective, it is entirely fair and reasonable that they don't pitch up. Shame, cos' their SEAD is supposed to be pretty damn good.

Remember, a WREN is for deployment, not for life.

[tug3]

freddoir - You're not a part-time "guest editor" for 'The Sun' from time to time are you? ('Cause if you ain't, you should be!!!)

Rgds
T3

[A Civilian]

Take away Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the UK there is no NATO. America knows this, can they rely on the Estonians with there 5000 man army? nadda.

Our political future lies in Europe talk about reforming the common market 30 years dead is just talk. There will never be any more war's in Europe, warefare has been replaced by a surrogate. The European Cup :D

[ORAC]

Why take away the UK?
--------------------------------------------------

CNN:

French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Wednesday in Paris they were not convinced a war with Iraq was necessary ......"as far as we're concerned, war always means failure."

---------------------------------------------------

Well, to be fair, if you're French or German, I suppose that's true..... :D

[freddoir]

Tug3,

What is wrong with the currant bun? I can tell you from personal experience that it is the first thing most people pick up to read over breakfast in the officers mess/wardroom.

I may not be a Europhile but I have the greatest of respect for some our continental cousins abilities, the Dutch and French F-16s and M2000-5 are, respectively, some of the best, if not the best operators of Air Defence aircraft anywhere, whatever an F3 pilot might tell you. The new German and Dutch Anti-Air Warfare frigates are amongst the most modern, most capable surface units this side of a Ticonderoga. On a personal note, I'd love to see them taking a more active role in the post 9/11 world. Shame our politicians cannot swallow the bitter pill and admit that these so-called inferior armed forces have got it right and we, with Eurofighter and Bowman and the likes, have got it so wrong. I just hope our servicemen and women don't have to pay the price for our penny-pinching politicians and greedy defence contractors.

There, got that off my chest.

[Fire 'n' Forget]

freddoir

I think you should send your CV into the currant bun, after all once your mighty non-deployable SHAR has departed they will no longer have a use for freddies for a while.............unless you are a lucky freddie and get onto our 'Magic' E3D!!! That or Watchkeeper duties for a while....... :D

[freddoir]

Yep, the shiny grey fanny magnet is going. Many tears will be shed. However, I'd rather staple my tongue to the floor with a croquet hoop than sit in a converted airliner for 8 hours to do 1 hours control, even with the flying pay. I'm sure you guys in the E3D world enjoy - please don't think I'm knocking it. I just sympathise that you light blue types never get to enjoy the cosmopolitan lifestyle that we intrepid FCs in dark blue love so much. After all, who wouldn't want to spend months on end in a steel box, surrounded by munters, doing a boring job with crap food and no daylight. But that's enough about Neat/Buch.

We all do the same job - keep up the banter!

Remember, a WREN is for Deployment, not for life!

[smartman]

freddoir

Not sure I get your drift concerning greedy defence contractors, 'specially in the Eurofighter context. This project, as with most others in UK these days, is subject to an onerous fixed price contract (unlike some other major contractors in, say, the US and France). By all means make constuctive criticism about poor performance/management, but greed? No - not today. The good Admiral, well known for his attitude to UK industry, has made well sure of that.

[BlueWolf]

Apologies for this long read tying up so much space, but it came in as an email, so I can't just post a link to it.




Here is your complimentary Stratfor Weekly, written by our
Chairman and Founder, Dr. George Friedman.

Please feel free to email this analysis to a friend.

Davos, Multilateralism and the Crisis of the Alliance

Summary

"Multilateralism" was the main theme at the annual meeting of the
World Economic Forum, recently concluded in Davos. For European
states, the first half of the 20th century was a time of
unprecedented savagery. In European minds, the culprit was
nationalism -- or, more precisely, the unilateral pursuit of
national interest. Multilateralism -- the creation of
multinational institutions and a multinational mode of thought --
is the Europeans' response to their history. It has become a
moral category. The United States, however, has a very different
history and a very different set of fears. The United States has
no historical reason for fearing its own nationalism, but it does
have reason to fear inaction. The U.S. need to deal with Islamic
radicalism collides with the European fear that the shattering of
multilateralism once again will release the demons of
nationalism.

Analysis

Stratfor was present at the annual meeting of the World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland, during the week of Jan. 23. The
meeting was fascinating, but not necessarily for the reasons the
organizers intended. At Davos, you could hear history creaking in
the woodwork -- the strains of the old international systems
beginning to splinter under the weight of new realities. It was a
meeting in which many participants expressed substantial anger at
the United States and fear of the future, particularly over the
coming war with Iraq. Underlying all of this, however, was the
belief that ultimately there was nothing broken that could not be
repaired.

Those present at Davos were far from representative of the world
or even of the world's elite. The World Economic Forum is an
organization comprising business leaders who head the major
global organizations. But many others attend the annual
conference: Senior government leaders -- including several heads
of state from each continent; armies of ministers, assistant
ministers and minor non-ministers; officials from multinational
organizations like the World Bank and United Nations; leaders of
various non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty
International; and representatives from think-tanks. Finally,
there are hordes of prestigious academics.

This does not necessarily mean a vast divergence of opinions. The
World Economic Forum has an embedded ideology, developed in the
1980s and forged in the1990s. The organization believes that the
business community, united and combined with these other
constituencies, can dramatically improve the human condition
through good will and good policies. Rising to its heights during
the 1990s, it held that economics had superceded geopolitics as
the driver of human events. At root, most of its members either
still believe this or wish this were true. At the recent
conference, it was not just the United States that was resented -
- the real resentment was at the betrayal by history, and an
underlying commitment to reversing that process.

What was present was that segment of the international elite that
is committed to preserving the international system as it was
prior to Sept. 11, 2001. The world view at Davos was of those who
remain committed to the world and the alliances founded by
American power after World War II -- and adopted by much of the
rest of the world since then. Resistance to the idea that this
world now could be defunct was intense, as much among the
American representatives as among the rest of the world. It was a
meeting in which two concepts, never expressed clearly but always
present, dominated: Preserve what is; restore what has been lost.

The NGOs and the think-tanks, combined with the multinational
organizations, form the intellectual center of gravity at Davos.
Combined with representatives of the European Union, they
constitute a powerful phalanx of thought. They are strongly
supported by most of the academics present, including those from
the United States. Other blocs are present. The Asians spent
their time thinking about economics, trying to drive away
thoughts of international conflict. The Asians also wistfully
recalled their former days of glory -- assuring everyone that the
glory lives on in China, and hoping that no one posed any serious
security or geopolitical questions to them. Muslim leaders,
seeking to block U.S. adventures in Iraq, aligned with the
Europeans, although their mindset was far from that of Brussels
on most issues.

The main thrust of the conference can be summed up in one term:
multilateralism. Multilateralism, in the context of Davos, is an
attack on the legitimacy of the United States in exercising
sovereign national rights outside the framework of international
institutions. The U.N., International Monetary Fund, EU and
various multinational NGOs are multilateral organizations. This
means two things: First, they are the creations of more than one
nation; second, their mission is to bridge the gap between
nations, thereby reducing conflict. There is an ethical
imperative here. The view is that nationalism is the problem that
drove the world to catastrophe in two world wars -- and that
multinational organizations are more than simply useful
contrivances that serve the interests of various nations; they
are moral enterprises whose very existence helps save the world
from conflict.

This is very much the European view, and it is understandable.
European nationalism led the Continent and the world into
unprecedented exercises of barbarism throughout the first half of
the twentieth century. The Europeans, deeply traumatized by the
horror that clearly ran just beneath the surface of their
civilization and which they no longer could deny, grabbed hold of
the U.S.-inspired system of multinational relations and expanded
on it for two reasons. One was the explicit mission (such as
economic development), and the second was the moral mission,
which was to limit the autonomy of European nations in order to
prevent another outbreak of European nationalism. NATO and the EU
were useful as ends in themselves, but their deepest purpose was
to prevent the outbreak of another Franco-German war by tying the
two nations together in a single network of relations.

For European leaders, multilateralism is a moral category,
designed to restrain the brutal consequences of nationalism. In
the distrust of national ambition and their a priori commitment
to entities like the IMF, World Bank and multiple U.N. agencies -
- as well as purely European contrivances -- the Europeans are
joined by the functionaries of international humanitarian and
human rights NGOs, as well as diplomats and public officials of
many countries -- especially European -- for whom the rhetoric of
multinationalism and multilateralism has become the common
currency of public discourse.

The United States has a very different experience of nationalism
and therefore a very different view of multilateralism. From the
U.S. point of view, World Wars I and II were exercises in
European savagery; it fell to the United States to save Europe
from itself. However, the United States never saw itself as
responsible for Europe's disease, nor did it see itself as
susceptible to it. Washington was not afraid of its own
nationalist tendencies. Americans believed that the Europeans
would not behave as civilized human beings unless they were
forced into institutions that limited their sovereignty and
behavior. In the American view, the lesson of the 20th century
was precisely the opposite: The United States could be trusted to
behave responsibly without institutional constraints. During the
Cold War, an American might argue, nuclear holocaust was
prevented precisely because the United States unilaterally
managed its nuclear strategy. Had the European statesmen of 1914
or 1939 had nuclear weapons, or had the weapons been held
multilaterally, another holocaust might have followed.

From the U.S. viewpoint, it is altogether reasonable that the
Europeans demand multilateralism for themselves. It is not
reasonable to demand it of the United States. The current
alliance structure has two purposes: One is to facilitate the
effective defense of the West, the other is to create a framework
for controlling European excesses. The alliance now is hindering
rather than facilitating defense and, one would hope, the
Europeans are now sufficiently chastened and mature to restrain
themselves within their own multilateral systems. NATO's
consensus system should not be permitted to impede U.S. war-
making strategy, particularly when it permits countries that
commit and risk little or nothing to control the United States,
which is committing and risking much. From Washington's
perspective, NATO might have outlived its usefulness.

At Davos, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the argument for
the United States, although he left much unsaid. In general, the
U.S. academic and NGO attendees sided with the Europeans, while
the business leaders maintained a muted tone, focusing on the
effects a war might have on the economy. There is a self-
selection process at Davos that results in a certain stratum of
U.S. views being represented while others are not. But it was
more interesting than that. There was continual talk about
European opposition to U.S. "unilateralism," but the Europeans
were deeply split as well. The Spanish government has come in on
Washington's position, and the Italian government is close. Most
of Eastern Europe is siding with the United States. And of course
the British government stands with the United States. Germany and
France do not speak for Europe; they speak for themselves in a
deeply divided Europe. The divisions within Europe did not come
through clearly.

In a sense, that's reasonable. Many Americans oppose President
George W. Bush's policies, and many Europeans oppose the Franco-
German position. But this is more than a question of public
opinion at any given period. The fact is that, at the deepest
intellectual and moral level, a divide is opening between Europe
and the United States. And with that gap, the entire edifice of
the post-War alliance structure is cracking apart.

From a practical point of view, we can already see the shifting
alliances. What Turkey or Saudi Arabia or India do has a direct,
potential effect on the United States. What Germany or France do
really doesn't matter that much in a practical sense. Geography
defines interests, and the geography of Europe has little to do
with contemporary U.S. interests and fears in 2003. The Fulda Gap
is infinitely less important than the Shatt al-Arab to the United
States. History has turned, and the incomprehension and anger of
the Europeans at Davos is directed less at the United States than
at a lack of ability to control events.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Blue Wolf

Thank you for your excellent posts. Any defensive alliance draws its cohesion from the threat. Eliminate the threat and the alliance fragments. The Warsaw Pact has been eliminated and, behold, NATO is gradually falling apart.

The UK has yet to decide whether it is part of Europe or the American Empire. It may be that we will end up with thje Celts in Europe and the English as the 51st state

[BlueWolf]

Cheers FV.

You may well be proved right; though I suspect it will take a longer time frame rather than a shorter one, for such devolutions and realliances to become the order of the day.

We all, as humans, tend to live in something of a time bubble, wherein we either forget or were never aware of the trends of human history as they went before us, or of what they suggest for the generations ahead.

But we are fleeting creatures, poor of memory, and driven by base desires. This is not something of which we should be ashamed; it is part of the human condition, and who knows, may even be part of some greater and grander design. As peoples, we create our allegiences and alliances acording to what is expedient at the time, and as time passes and circumstances alter, so the accepted groupings within human society may and do change accordingly.

In the centuries to come, not even the United States will be immune to this shifting of human loyalties. The pacific north-west of North America, from northern California, Oregon, and Washington, has a greater affinity to the likes of British Columbia than it does to the east coast of either nation. At the same time, the eastern seaboard of Canada, and the northern east coast regions of the US and New England, have more in common with each other than either do with their respective nations' midwest and plains people.

In the south, the rise of Hispanic culture and language may well come to supplant the administration which has facilitated its fostering.

In the fullness of time, perhaps sooner than we may expect, Quebec will likely return to being what it was originally intended as.

And as groupings and allegiences change, so Treaties will come and go.

The world as we know it currently is but one small window on the story of human development.

In ancient time, and in recent, major alterations have been brought about even within the nations and peoples with whom we have greatest familiarity.

Once, England and Scotland were separate entities. Once, Wales was a wild, unconquerable, and by definition, self-governing place. Once, Ireland was politically a part of Britain. Once, New Zealand was administered from New South Wales.

Remember Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union?

Remember Prussia? East Germany? Transjordan? Biafra? Tanganyeka (sp?)? Even Texas was once an independent Republic. Remember Alaska being purchased from the Russians?

The list goes on; and how quickly we forget. The great mistake we make is that within our time bubble, we believe ourseves to be immune from history and from human nature.

As time passes, so things change, and I believe that NATO as we know it will go the way of all things.

Almost certainly, it will be replaced by something of equivalent relevance.

If only a few more politicians, a few more strategists, and a few more of the gung-ho and the doomsayers, could take the time and trouble to read a little history (somewhere quiet, and preferably sober) then maybe the process of progression would become a little easier, and maybe make a little more sense.

Just a thought.

[Flatus Veteranus]

BlueWolf

Looking to the future is indeed like a kaleidoscope. And the "wisdom" of hindsight is probably a liability. Nevertheless I will hazard a guess that there are one or two rocks amongst the shifting sands. And you are sitting on one of them. Good luck to you! :) :)

[A Civilian]

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030204-031831-1626r

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious.

"France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor."

French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday.

Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies.

"Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said.

"But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium."

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."

"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.


Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International



Methinks France said 'non' to Allfather Bush. Now I know what the new EU army is for :eek:

[solotk]

Now there's a scary old post right there .....:(

[oldnotbold]

As someone who takes the view that British membership of the EU is generally a bad thing & a real threat to British independence I would make the following observations.

France has never really liked NATO & certainly since the fall of the Soviet Union has worked hard to produce a 'Euro' alternative. Hence we get France blocking defensive measures in Turkey to both disrupt NATO & try another dig at the US-British alliance over Iraq which she hates.

If you are someone who feels that a fully intergrated 'Euro' Armed Forces with a 'Euro' defence policy with majority voting in the EU fine. France wants more EU forces like the, so called, European Rapid Reaction Force. With her eyes on the planned RN CVF's (which will be the largest Carriers in the world outside the USN) she proposes standing Euro Naval Forces.

France is against action to disarm Iraq for several reason (assorted trade deals, her own large muslim population) but above all because she sees opposition to action on Iraq as a way of disrupting NATO in general & the US-British relationship in particular.

[Ali Barber]

As I understand it, Turkey has asked for extra defensive assets under the NATO treaty because it feels theatened by Iraq (accepted, this is because it is allowing US to use its bases). Ger, Fr and Be have blocked this, which must be in direct contravention of the NATO treaty I assume. There can only be one result of that - the NATO treaty is dead in the water. The only reason the politicians are playing down the significance of the NATO rift is that the alternative is a EU force, and that would be giving in to the Germans and French.

There has been a fundamental problem with NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union and that is a lack of a clearly defined threat to the NATO area. It is still looking for a role, partly as a "police force" for use by the UN in out-of-NATO-area operations. As such, it is no longer perceived as a defensive alliance for the NATO members.

[roundel]

The respondent who said that we may become the 51st state didnt have such a bad idea, after all NAFTA would be much more effective and cheaper than the present state of affairs,wouldnt it?

Flatus, your sage, as ever, opinion please.

[LunchMonitor]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Maggie's (sorry Baroness Thatcher's) sentiments when she said, in 1999:

"In my lifetime all our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world."

IMHO history repeating itself is a fact and not a cliche.

[RubiC Cube]

Does anyone think there is any serious threat of Iraq invading Turkey? No, Saddam is a survivor and will not give the allies an excuse. Moreover, would he split his defences from the threat from the Gulf?

Putting NATO forces in the region will only increase the threat of blue on blue as Turkish bombs rain down on "undisclosed targets".

[A Civilian]

Remember the 'No Adventures' statement issued by France and Germany after 11.9?

I think in any definition of the terms this is certainly an adventure the fact that they were willing to refuse an NATO article 4 request for help just goes to show you how hardline they are opposed to adventures in Berlin and Paris.

[ORAC]

New York Times - 12th Feb:
Europe Seems to Lose Value for Bush

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Faced by a sharp trans-Atlantic rift that has split NATO, many officials here are wondering why the Bush administration has not tried harder to preserve what Senator John McCain last week described as "the greatest political military alliance in the history of mankind."

That question, senior administration officials said today, has not been answered within the circle of President Bush and his advisers, in part because there are divisions between them over how important old cold war allies like France and Germany are to the new war against terror. One Bush administration official, obviously appalled by the growing vitriol between Paris and Washington, said, "We are just hoping that the whole edifice" of the Western alliance "does not come crashing down."

But in several comments, including one referring to France and Germany as the "old Europe" and another comparing Germany to Libya and Cuba, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has suggested that these countries now matter much less to America's plans. Indeed, it has been striking that the current German-American rift has not been regarded as critical or important enough to resolve for several months now.

The White House today heaped scorn on France, Germany and Belgium for abandoning "our good and worthy ally in Turkey," as the White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher, termed it, and Mr. Bush's advisers advertised that the president was hunting for support, with a telephone call to Angola, for a strong position against Iraq in the United Nations Security Council.

The three European countries have refused an American request in NATO to plan for the defense of Turkey as Turkey prepares its territory to be the launching ground for a war on Iraq. The dispute has reflected and intensified what is widely regarded as the worst crisis within the Western alliance since the end of the cold war. Sympathy for the United States over the Sept. 11 attacks has largely evaporated in a Europe troubled by the American drive to oust Saddam Hussein.

But there was little talk of compromise today, and more rancor. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."

Some analysts said the crisis in the alliance has arisen because Mr. Bush and the neoconservative aides who have become the most prominent influence on his foreign policy have convinced him that Europe simply does not count anymore, or at least a Europe conceived as having its power centers in Berlin and Paris. In the place of Germany and France, Mr. Bush has reached out to countries like Poland and Spain. In so doing, he has only enraged President Jacques Chirac of France still further. As one analyst commented of the current crisis, "Can you imagine Mr. Chirac now bowing to the Polish position?"

What is certain is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell have spent less time in Europe than any of their predecessors. Often it seems that the shared values of the cold war struggle have been replaced by other pressures and convictions that are pulling the alliance apart. This is as true in Europe as in the United States. In Germany, the departure of Soviet tanks and the constant threat of war have meant that it has found the voice to say no to war in Iraq. Such a direct challenge to the United States would have been unthinkable during the cold war.

An aide to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany said by telephone from Berlin today: "It would be risky to say that this is the only time that this is going to happen. It can happen that there are serious problems where we agree on substance, but disagree on how to achieve our aims, but we should not let it get out of proportion." The Germans see Mr. Powell as the one member of Mr. Bush's team who takes into account the views of allies, something essential to the maintenance of any alliance. But in the last year, Mr. Powell has made few trips to Europe, though he logs prodigious time on the telephone to Europeans.

In France, Mr. Chirac has shown a keen interest in putting constraints on the unilateral use of American power and elevating the Security Council. The consolidation of international institutions has been a chief thrust of countries like France and Germany that have abandoned much of their sovereignty to the construction of one such international institution, the European Union.

Russia has hovered near the European position, but with options open to preserve relations with Washington. But today, President Vladimir V. Putin leaned strongly toward Europe by going on French television and saying, "I am convinced that it would be a grave error to be drawn into unilateral action" by the United States in Iraq, which he said would be "outside of international law."

Harold Brown, whose NATO experience extends from Pentagon posts under Lyndon Johnson to his service as Jimmy Carter's secretary of defense, said that profound changes under way in Europe and the United States after the cold war and the absence of leaders deeply invested in maintaining the Atlantic bridge could lead to the collapse of trans-Atlantic bonds. "France and Germany are the core of continental Europe and they cannot be dismissed," he said. "But the Bush administration has got to engage the Europeans in a dialogue on what the relationships between them are going to be."

One problem, he said, is that France and Germany are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that they no longer command a Continent where newer states from the Soviet bloc are filling out the ranks of NATO and the European Union. These states, like Poland and Hungary, bring not only a greater diversity, but an innate bias toward Washington because they still feel grateful to the United States for their freedom. They also see Washington as a hedge against the re-emergence of a hostile Russia.

The Bush administration has exploited the new fissures in Europe to play off the new and emerging post-Soviet states against France and Germany. Mr. Bush seems uninterested in French-German strategies to avoid war, and is now intensely focused on defeating the European powers that stand in the way of a Security Council resolution that would set the stage for war.

Mr. Bush started his day on the phone to Angola's president, José Eduardo dos Santos, to discuss "their shared view that Saddam Hussein must disarm and comply" fully with United Nations resolutions, according Mr. Fleisher. Angola is one of the 10 nonpermanent members of the Security Council this month.

There was no presidential call to Berlin or Paris and a senior administration official said the prevailing White House view was that France and Germany "deserve to be embarrassed because their NATO position is untenable."

[oldnotbold]

The threat Turkey wanted protection from was mainly Iraqi missiles & -much less likely- air attack.

She was asking NATO mainly for SAM defences, not ground troops, which makes the position taken by France, Germany & Belgium even more obstructive.

For the French especially this is mainly a chance to disrupt NATO & have another jab at the Anglo-Americans.

[A Civilian]

I dont know much about equipment stuff but isnt Germany and Holland the only two countries in Europe that have these Patriot anti-ballistic missles and Holland doesnt have enough to send to Turkey.

It seems that Germany is the only country that can possibly respond to this request no matter what any of the others say or do.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Roundel

A "sage", eh? Wot me?? A Third in PPE and 34 years' playtime in the RAF - you gotta be joking!

The UK is perpetually hung up on the dilemma over whether it is a European or Atlantic state. At least the choice has narrowed since the days of Churchill's three interlocking circles, one of which was the Commonwealth. I believe the Commonwealth as a potential economic and political powerhouse died at Singapore in 1941. The Last Rites were performed at Suez in 1956. (Although the possibility that New Zealand and Australia might join us in the American Empire is attractive.)

The chap who mentioned in a recent post that the UK's natural political stance was within Europe was right, but about 50 years too late. Foreign Secretaries like Ernest Bevin and Anthony Eden in the '50s blew it big time when they refused to participate in the conferences leading to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community and then the EEC, because we were "a world nuclear power". The Foreign Office sent a civil servant in the grade of Principal to the Messina Conference in 1954 as an observer. All he did was to sit there sucking his pipe. This was a catastrophic failure of statemanship, and allowed the French and Germans to stitch the whole project up to suit the French farmers and the Spanish fishermen. Ever since then we have being playing catch-up.

The EU is still our largest market for manufactured goods. But its protectionist tariffs are going to be whittled away by the WTO. Besides, the UK economy is moving at an accelerating pace away from manufacturing towards the service industries. 40% UK GDP is now produced in SE England, and 25% within Greater London, which is hardly a "smoke stack" town. And the City's links seem to be far closer with NY than with Frankfurt or Paris.

The UK's cohesion seems to me to be threatened by differing political cultures in England and the Celtic fringe, as indicated by the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. How many Scottish and Welsh MPs are Tories? Damn few! Perhaps England is basically more individualistic and entrepreneurial, whilst the Celts are more collectivist. The English naturally look across the Atlantic and cannot stand the "Euroweenies". The press that France gets in the London tabloids is usually vitriolic but at present it is unbelievable and disgraceful. On the other hand the hard and vociferous Left, which gets more than its fair share of exposure on the BBC and in the Grauniad, is viscerally anti-American - presumably because they are bad losers in the war of ideologies. The Scots have historically been very cuddly with the French, and never more so than at present. The SNP, as I understand, is committed to independence within the EU. I can never understand what Plaid Cymru is up to; nor, it seems, can many of its members. The EMU debate seems to be stalled. Eddie George thinks the financial services industry can cope just as well within or outside the Eurozone, but the manufacturers (mainly in the North) believe they would be better off inside it.

Myself, I straddle the two camps. Two exchange tours with the USAF left me with an abiding admiration for the dynamism of the USA. It is a wonderful place if you have plenty of money. If you don't it is awful. The rigours of raw capitalism are pitiless. It is a beautiful continent, but man has done his best to ruin it with its built environment (except for Manhattan, DC, and San Francisco). I have travelled extensively on the Continent and instinctively feel more at home in old countries with ancient cities and long-established cultures. My daughter married a Frenchman and my grandchildren are dual-nationals. I love travelling in France, which has everything in the way of culture, cuisine and physical beauty. It has developed a form of socialism in which the public services by and large work well because freedom of consumer choice has been maintained. The French seem more at ease with each other than the Brits and have more savoir vivre . Individually and collectively they are the most selfish people on the planet. My memories of various NATO committees when I was in OR are that the Germans were efficient but did not know how to compromise, and the French were a complete pain in the arse, contributing nothing, insisting on speaking in French (when everyone else had fluent English) and overtly pushing French-made kit.

I do not se any British government getting away with taking the UK into the monstrous EU constitution dreamt up by Chirac and his Gaullist Enarchs. The end of NATO may coincide with the renegotiation of the UK's accession treaty to the EU, at which point the Celts may decide to peel off from the Union. Good luck to them - I no longer really care what they do. England would survive perfectly well on its own and could seek economic ties with NAFTA (to the diminishing extent that such arrangements are relevant in this "global" world),and a defensive alliance based on N America and, hopefully, our cousins in Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile I will live out my remaining time in Devon. In the winter when the drizzle gets tedious I like to visit friends in the USA and New Zealand, interspersed with plenty of trips "Outre-Manche" to see the sprogs (and top up with plonk).

NATO seems irrelevant and it is high time we brought home the forces garrisoned in Germany.
:D :)

[ORAC]

AW&ST:

The dispute between the U.S. and France and Germany over Iraq threatens to spill into other areas.

In a sign that long-term relations may have been harmed, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said his panel would hold hearings over whether to realign the U.S. troop presence in Europe, which numbers 100,000 military personnel, with more than 71,000 in Germany.

The move was not entirely motivated by the squabbling over Iraq, Hunter said, but "the debate has brought this issue to the forefront." Moreover, he said, the U.S. should consider relocating forces to new NATO members that are strategically better located and where costs are lower.

The idea of reexamining the U.S. military footprint in Europe was raised by U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, the new head of U.S. European Command. One proposal is to rely more on expeditionary troop movements from the U.S., rather than having units assigned permanently overseas.

The U.S. is slated to review its domestic base infrastructure in Fiscal 2005, and Hunter said it makes sense to reevaluate requirements in Europe as well. In a barb at Germany, where the popular tide has run against the U.S. over Iraq, Hunter noted that "community support" is one factor that could tilt a decision on whether to close a facility. However, he stressed, military needs should be the overriding consideration in any move...............