ESLaPorte
2004-06-25 17:55:46 UTC
The Istanbul Summit report #1... and the future of NATO.
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
25 June 2004
1. The threats to our leaders...
As predicted by this Author, bombs have gone
off in Istanbul...dugh, really?! The main culprits are. . .surprise -
surprise. . . Marxist-Leninist type "patriots" who are attempting to
"hinder" the Summit. We did expect this - as the terrorists in this part of
the world are nationalist-type Marxists - Leninists who consider themselves
"patriots" in their murderous attempts to "hinder" the Istanbul Summit. The
blend of nationalism with Marxism is rather odd, as Karl Marx was a bit of
an anti-nationalist.
Look for the Turkish domestic "protestors" to be a bit more organized than
those at the Prague Summit. The Turkish Communist Party (TKP) appears to be
the strong organizers of this summit's "hindering" and "mobilizing people to
close Istanbul to NATO." When this Author went to Istanbul in October 2002,
she saw people putting up posters of the TKP and they had a van with a
loudspeaker going through neighborhoods. Their propaganda is typical of
communist, Leninist notions that "capitalism is the cause of wars," but is
coherent and rational, perhaps due to the fact that the TKP is a real
political party of mature and rational people.
Also look for the presence of Europeans participating in what they call
"Resistanbul 2004." Much of their propaganda is rather cranky and
oddballish - and irrationally blames our NATO Alliance and the European
Union for all of Europe's problems, from human trafficking in the Balkans,
to prisoner abuse in Iraq, to the damage to Europe's environment. European
anti-NATO propaganda is filled with conspiracy theories, lunatic delusions
and is not rational to most sane people! Lastly, look for the troublemakers
in Istanbul to wave red flags and don black masks as they riot and smash up
Istanbul. Most of the criminal activity that results in riot-type violence
will be from Europe's Looney left. The threat is real - as noted by this
Author's Internet travels - and is not just from al-Quida and pro-Saddam
militants.
2. Iraq and helping the Iraqi people...
There has been the call on the part of
mainly the US to our NATO Alliance to help the Iraqi people in security.
First, our Alliance has its hands full in Afghanistan and is a bit stretched
there with the upcoming elections. Well, Bush can be to blame, as the job
has not been finished in Afghanistan. The mounting violence in Iraq should
be of concern to the international community. When Iraqi Prime Minister,
Iyad Allawi, asked for assistance from our Alliance - it be granted to him
and the door should not be "slammed in his face," as SecGen Scheffer stated.
The new prime minister of Iraq is a brave man whose life is threatened. Our
Alliance can provide more than just training in security for the Iraqi
people. The British idea of sending 3000 NRF troops to Iraq should receive
more than just an idea that is "floating around." A NATO - in partnership
with the United Nations - can become a great bonus for the Iraqi people and
their security.
However, with our NATO Alliance's footprint in Iraq already, that footprint
will get larger in the coming year until NATO's footprints are all over
Iraq. Besides NATO's help to Poland and other Allies in Iraq, the
interoperability of the forces of the US and UK in Iraq is due to both the
US and UK involvement in NATO and NATO's common standards for Alliance
nations - including the US and UK, as well as other Allied members.
3. The Sacred Cow of Consensus once again hamstrings NATO in Istanbul.
Already in Istanbul - France is using the threat of false "veto" under the
consensus
decision-making model to hamstring our Alliance. Once again, the notion of
"NATO consensus" is hindering our Alliance more than the wildest dreams of
the TKP would in Istanbul. The problems with consensus and our Alliance's
goals and ambitions simply do not mix well. How can a supposedly "rapid
reaction corps" - the NATO Response Force - be deployed when our Alliance
cannot "get consensus" to even take over the Iraq mission under the threat
of the non-existent "veto" from France? The truth is that there is no veto
in NATO and the notion that every decision has to be made in unanimity,
including from France, is plan ol' poppycock.
Well, NATO is already providing support to Poland and other Allies with
mainly logistics in Iraq. Our NATO is already in Iraq. Since France and
Germany do not participate in Iraq, they should not hinder either our
Alliance and other Allies that are participating in Iraq. NATO will be very
much in Iraq more a year from now - than it is now - regardless of what
either France and Germany want.
It appears to this Author that France and Germany appear to be using the
non-existent "veto" in the North Atlantic Council to hinder the Alliance's
full participation in Iraq. There are a few reasons sabotage of our Alliance
could be the case with especially France. First, it has been the Gaullist
ambition that "France should lead Europe." A two speed Europe? Yep - and
France leads - everyone follows, including Germany. Second, it is a
well-known Gaullist notion that our NATO Alliance is a "vehicle of American
hegemony" in Europe. This is not only not true, but this is communist
propaganda straight out of the Soviet-era Kremlin. A Europe that is a
dependant on France is what Gaullists have always wanted. What then would
replace security in Europe if NATO was weakened and out of business? A
Euro-paper army? NOPE!
Along with the false notion that a member-state has a "veto" in the NAC, is
the other false notion that all NATO nations "must participate" in a
NATO-led operation. Even in an Article Five crisis, the notion that all NATO
nations must participate militarily is absolutely wrong from beginning to
end. The notion that participation in a NATO operation, such as in Iraq or
Afghanistan, carry a military obligation for all NATO members is being
pushed by mainly the global press. The wording of Article Five during the
crafting of the North Atlantic Treaty was made flexible for the sake of the
Americans and the US Constitution's demand that Congress be involved in the
commitment of American forces to war. Military participation in NATO is not
an obligation for members - but an elective that a nation can safely say
"non" to and it is not supposed to "place the credibility of the Alliance at
risk."
4. The future of NATO - again...
Besides the continued hindrance provided by
the consensus decision-making model, there will be the continued discussion
of Alliance transformation in Istanbul. The truth is that the transformation
takes time and lessons need to be learned and perhaps there is not "final"
NATO Alliance organizational mission. Adaptability and organizational
flexibility should be our Alliance's main "contingency plan" and there
should be no "set" security mission for our NATO Alliance as in the Cold
War. Our NATO Alliance should be a "jack of all trades." The continued
notion, pressed mainly in the global newspaper press, that NATO should have
"one set military only, security mission" is just as much Cold War thinking
as the notion that "Russia is the enemy of NATO." What the Istanbul Summit
can, should and will be about is Allied "house cleaning" of the Cold War
cobwebs that take the form of various Cold War notions about what our
Alliance is and the psychological limiting of the roles that it can play in
today's world.
Our Alliance leaders seriously need to "think out of the box" and NATO
should be fashioned into more than a military alliance. What was a good step
in this direction was the selection of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who is a
diplomat not a defense minister. The visit of Australia to NATO was a step
in this direction, given Australia's historical ties to the North Atlantic
democracies - and that relationship should be about more than military
interoperatibility, but diplomatic, democratic and non-military security
interoperability too. This Author has written several papers on the
potential non-military roles for our NATO Alliance. Before we can have a
flexible and adaptable NATO Alliance, our Alliance must somehow liberate
itself from the bondage of the consensus decision-making model.
See also:
ATA General Assembly in Istanbul -2002
http://www.pronato.com/EuroAtlantic/ATA/index.htm
The Prague Summit one year on: the NRF, NATO's transformation and
decision-making process.
http://terrorism.pronato.com/NATO.NRF.terrorism.htm
The Marriage of Venus and Mars:
Europe and America - a new relationship against terrorism.
http://transatlantic.security.pronato.com/EU.terrorism2.htm
Europe and democratic governments against terrorism.
http://transatlantic.security.pronato.com/EU.terrorism1.htm
"The Pledge" - Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty.
http://www.pronato.com/NATreaty/article5.htm
Erin S LaPorte
The NATO Citizen www.pronato.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin - USA
"Long live the entangling Alliance!"
"Long live NATO!"
http://www.pronato.com/commentary/index.htm
25 June 2004
1. The threats to our leaders...
As predicted by this Author, bombs have gone
off in Istanbul...dugh, really?! The main culprits are. . .surprise -
surprise. . . Marxist-Leninist type "patriots" who are attempting to
"hinder" the Summit. We did expect this - as the terrorists in this part of
the world are nationalist-type Marxists - Leninists who consider themselves
"patriots" in their murderous attempts to "hinder" the Istanbul Summit. The
blend of nationalism with Marxism is rather odd, as Karl Marx was a bit of
an anti-nationalist.
Look for the Turkish domestic "protestors" to be a bit more organized than
those at the Prague Summit. The Turkish Communist Party (TKP) appears to be
the strong organizers of this summit's "hindering" and "mobilizing people to
close Istanbul to NATO." When this Author went to Istanbul in October 2002,
she saw people putting up posters of the TKP and they had a van with a
loudspeaker going through neighborhoods. Their propaganda is typical of
communist, Leninist notions that "capitalism is the cause of wars," but is
coherent and rational, perhaps due to the fact that the TKP is a real
political party of mature and rational people.
Also look for the presence of Europeans participating in what they call
"Resistanbul 2004." Much of their propaganda is rather cranky and
oddballish - and irrationally blames our NATO Alliance and the European
Union for all of Europe's problems, from human trafficking in the Balkans,
to prisoner abuse in Iraq, to the damage to Europe's environment. European
anti-NATO propaganda is filled with conspiracy theories, lunatic delusions
and is not rational to most sane people! Lastly, look for the troublemakers
in Istanbul to wave red flags and don black masks as they riot and smash up
Istanbul. Most of the criminal activity that results in riot-type violence
will be from Europe's Looney left. The threat is real - as noted by this
Author's Internet travels - and is not just from al-Quida and pro-Saddam
militants.
2. Iraq and helping the Iraqi people...
There has been the call on the part of
mainly the US to our NATO Alliance to help the Iraqi people in security.
First, our Alliance has its hands full in Afghanistan and is a bit stretched
there with the upcoming elections. Well, Bush can be to blame, as the job
has not been finished in Afghanistan. The mounting violence in Iraq should
be of concern to the international community. When Iraqi Prime Minister,
Iyad Allawi, asked for assistance from our Alliance - it be granted to him
and the door should not be "slammed in his face," as SecGen Scheffer stated.
The new prime minister of Iraq is a brave man whose life is threatened. Our
Alliance can provide more than just training in security for the Iraqi
people. The British idea of sending 3000 NRF troops to Iraq should receive
more than just an idea that is "floating around." A NATO - in partnership
with the United Nations - can become a great bonus for the Iraqi people and
their security.
However, with our NATO Alliance's footprint in Iraq already, that footprint
will get larger in the coming year until NATO's footprints are all over
Iraq. Besides NATO's help to Poland and other Allies in Iraq, the
interoperability of the forces of the US and UK in Iraq is due to both the
US and UK involvement in NATO and NATO's common standards for Alliance
nations - including the US and UK, as well as other Allied members.
3. The Sacred Cow of Consensus once again hamstrings NATO in Istanbul.
Already in Istanbul - France is using the threat of false "veto" under the
consensus
decision-making model to hamstring our Alliance. Once again, the notion of
"NATO consensus" is hindering our Alliance more than the wildest dreams of
the TKP would in Istanbul. The problems with consensus and our Alliance's
goals and ambitions simply do not mix well. How can a supposedly "rapid
reaction corps" - the NATO Response Force - be deployed when our Alliance
cannot "get consensus" to even take over the Iraq mission under the threat
of the non-existent "veto" from France? The truth is that there is no veto
in NATO and the notion that every decision has to be made in unanimity,
including from France, is plan ol' poppycock.
Well, NATO is already providing support to Poland and other Allies with
mainly logistics in Iraq. Our NATO is already in Iraq. Since France and
Germany do not participate in Iraq, they should not hinder either our
Alliance and other Allies that are participating in Iraq. NATO will be very
much in Iraq more a year from now - than it is now - regardless of what
either France and Germany want.
It appears to this Author that France and Germany appear to be using the
non-existent "veto" in the North Atlantic Council to hinder the Alliance's
full participation in Iraq. There are a few reasons sabotage of our Alliance
could be the case with especially France. First, it has been the Gaullist
ambition that "France should lead Europe." A two speed Europe? Yep - and
France leads - everyone follows, including Germany. Second, it is a
well-known Gaullist notion that our NATO Alliance is a "vehicle of American
hegemony" in Europe. This is not only not true, but this is communist
propaganda straight out of the Soviet-era Kremlin. A Europe that is a
dependant on France is what Gaullists have always wanted. What then would
replace security in Europe if NATO was weakened and out of business? A
Euro-paper army? NOPE!
Along with the false notion that a member-state has a "veto" in the NAC, is
the other false notion that all NATO nations "must participate" in a
NATO-led operation. Even in an Article Five crisis, the notion that all NATO
nations must participate militarily is absolutely wrong from beginning to
end. The notion that participation in a NATO operation, such as in Iraq or
Afghanistan, carry a military obligation for all NATO members is being
pushed by mainly the global press. The wording of Article Five during the
crafting of the North Atlantic Treaty was made flexible for the sake of the
Americans and the US Constitution's demand that Congress be involved in the
commitment of American forces to war. Military participation in NATO is not
an obligation for members - but an elective that a nation can safely say
"non" to and it is not supposed to "place the credibility of the Alliance at
risk."
4. The future of NATO - again...
Besides the continued hindrance provided by
the consensus decision-making model, there will be the continued discussion
of Alliance transformation in Istanbul. The truth is that the transformation
takes time and lessons need to be learned and perhaps there is not "final"
NATO Alliance organizational mission. Adaptability and organizational
flexibility should be our Alliance's main "contingency plan" and there
should be no "set" security mission for our NATO Alliance as in the Cold
War. Our NATO Alliance should be a "jack of all trades." The continued
notion, pressed mainly in the global newspaper press, that NATO should have
"one set military only, security mission" is just as much Cold War thinking
as the notion that "Russia is the enemy of NATO." What the Istanbul Summit
can, should and will be about is Allied "house cleaning" of the Cold War
cobwebs that take the form of various Cold War notions about what our
Alliance is and the psychological limiting of the roles that it can play in
today's world.
Our Alliance leaders seriously need to "think out of the box" and NATO
should be fashioned into more than a military alliance. What was a good step
in this direction was the selection of Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who is a
diplomat not a defense minister. The visit of Australia to NATO was a step
in this direction, given Australia's historical ties to the North Atlantic
democracies - and that relationship should be about more than military
interoperatibility, but diplomatic, democratic and non-military security
interoperability too. This Author has written several papers on the
potential non-military roles for our NATO Alliance. Before we can have a
flexible and adaptable NATO Alliance, our Alliance must somehow liberate
itself from the bondage of the consensus decision-making model.
See also:
ATA General Assembly in Istanbul -2002
http://www.pronato.com/EuroAtlantic/ATA/index.htm
The Prague Summit one year on: the NRF, NATO's transformation and
decision-making process.
http://terrorism.pronato.com/NATO.NRF.terrorism.htm
The Marriage of Venus and Mars:
Europe and America - a new relationship against terrorism.
http://transatlantic.security.pronato.com/EU.terrorism2.htm
Europe and democratic governments against terrorism.
http://transatlantic.security.pronato.com/EU.terrorism1.htm
"The Pledge" - Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty.
http://www.pronato.com/NATreaty/article5.htm
Erin S LaPorte
The NATO Citizen www.pronato.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin - USA
"Long live the entangling Alliance!"
"Long live NATO!"