European defense capability should not be achieved at the expense of others' security!

Post by ESLaPorte
European defense capability should not be achieved at the expense of others'
security!
One thing about our NATO Alliance and membership in our Alliance is that it
respects the security needs of democracies - all of them. NATO has
established contact with non-European nations, including Japan and
Argentina, and nations in Asia and the Caucasus. NATO's view is that
democracies around the globe should have some fellowship and protection.
Compare that with the current exclusionary mentality that has driven the
European Union's continuous attempts to have an "independent from NATO"
defense and security policy. As part of an anti-American protest of the Iraq
War last year, the four nations that attempted to block defenses for Turkey
in NATO then went on in April to hold their own "EU defense summit" - which
excluded most of Europe from participation. France, mainly, was the
instigator of this exclusion. Excluded were Eastern European nations that
sided with the US, including NATO powerhouse Poland.
However, the result of the "coalition of the unwilling summit" was a lot of
talk, but, as usual, no real talk about how to actually fund European
defense. The result was also a continuation of the talk about achieving the
Headline Goal of an EU reaction force. Also, the "summit" appeared to
duplicate NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitments, with Eastern European
nations left out of the niche capabilities that they already have achieved
high competence within NATO.
Nations that were excluded were a bit upset by the notion that a few
nations, lead by France, would dictate European security and defense policy
to other nations. There appears to be a two tiered development is European
defense where some nations "lead and others follow." This notion is grounded
in inequality among members of the Union and that was evident during
France's proposal that Europe proceed to integrate at "two speeds."
Poland was rightfully upset by this prospect and the notion that a block of
European nations could create and impose their version of European security
and defense policy. Also upset by the prospect of a weakened NATO was
Canada, which is so often left out of transatlantic discussions. Canada is
one nation that needs a strong transatlantic relationship and Atlantic
Alliance to ensure her security. Likewise, Turkey also is in need of a
strong Atlantic Alliance - and there are some European leaders - in France -
that don't regard Turkey as European and not event worth defending. This
kind of selfishness and exclusion of a fellow democracy is not practiced in
our NATO Alliance.
We just cannot afford the distraction that an EU vs. NATO competition in
defense would cause in this dangerous age, as well as the pointless cost in
scarce resources. In this dangerous age the game that some European nations
are playing - lead by France - places our entire civilization at risk. At a
time when the Atlantic Alliance should be strengthened, there are those
European nations that are attempting to damage or destroy our unity in the
Atlantic Alliance in the name of an competing "Euroarmy" that exists only on
paper - and especially would exclude other democratic nations from a
meaningful collective security system, namely Canada and Turkey.
You will notice that the open instigator of the transatlantic trouble and
the most ambitious in attempting to openly damage NATO is France. The fact
that France in leading this dangerous game is no accident. Go and read
Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration." Brent Nelsen
and Alexender Stubb, eds. Lynn Rienner, London, UK. p. 27-44. (1998).

I believe your perception is false : EU is not against NATO but some
countries in EU (and, personaly, I find they are right) want to have a
part of the European defense in own hands. This means that these
countries wouldn't need NATO approval before acting.

This has nothing to do with some anti-americanism (even if you, at the
other side of the Atlantic, feel it that way).

NATO would be more effcient with two partners : EU and North America.
As you know, we (Europe) have a different approach of the geopolitics
than you (US-Canada) have. And this is quite normal : the cultural,
economical and political contexts are different.

Please don't feel this EU 'emancipation' as a reaction against NATO or
US or ... NO, it's a potive movement not a negative one.

ML (former Officer in the Belgian Armed Forces)

Barry Worthington

2004-01-28 18:35:07 UTC

Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union. It was a 'cold war alliance', which is why it included
the USA and Canada. There was a secondary motive - it permitted West
German rearmament under NATO auspices, entangling the German army in
an international alliance. To promote European security, it was
designed "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans
under."

Changing circumstances have left the old alliance high and dry.

NATO has

Post by ESLaPorte
established contact with non-European nations, including Japan and
Argentina, and nations in Asia and the Caucasus. NATO's view is that
democracies around the globe should have some fellowship and protection.

The NATO structure was never designed to intervene in situations that
were nothing to do with the original remit. It could not, For example,
prevent Portugal using NATO military aid in African colonial wars, or
two of its members almost going to war over Cyprus.

It could not intervene to stop the fighting in Croatia. But it rapidly
became the command structure for a military force that did intervene
in the Balkans, and it is trying to transform itself into a general
security apparatus for Europe, inluding accomodations with Russia and
the C.I.S. But the old treaty does constrain these moves from time to
time.

Post by ESLaPorte
Compare that with the current exclusionary mentality that has driven the
European Union's continuous attempts to have an "independent from NATO"
defense and security policy.

Why shouldn't the E.U. have a miltary dimension? It was agreed at
Maastrricht that this should be the case. If the E.U. develops a
foreign policy of its own (as is right and proper), it needs a miltary
mechanism to implement its decisions if necessary. Why? Because
European thinking might be at variance with American at times, and it
makes no sense to work through a command structure that includes the
American military.

You may also consider that the NATO alliance (now that we no longer
have the common enemy it was designed to defend us all against) might
be seen as a means of projecting American political power and
influence in Europe. Hence the propesed move of U.S. bases to Eastern
Europe and the nefarious quasi-political role of Lockheed in that part
of the world. Paranoia or straws in the wind? Who knows? But that's
why some people want an independent European military structure...

As part of an anti-American protest of the Iraq

Post by ESLaPorte
War last year, the four nations that attempted to block defenses for Turkey

I don't think that you can leave the Kurds out of this. There were
solid reasons not to entangle Turkey in an assault on Iraq - we would
have to live with the consequences....

Post by ESLaPorte
in NATO then went on in April to hold their own "EU defense summit" - which
excluded most of Europe from participation. France, mainly, was the
instigator of this exclusion. Excluded were Eastern European nations that
sided with the US, including NATO powerhouse Poland.

That is disengenuous. This refers to the command structure of a
European 'rapid reaction force', and concerns those who might
contribute to it (including Britain). This has nothing to do with the
Iraq crisis. Indeed Tony Blair has told Rumsfeld and co to accept this
a natural development.

Post by ESLaPorte
However, the result of the "coalition of the unwilling summit" was a lot of
talk, but, as usual, no real talk about how to actually fund European
defense. The result was also a continuation of the talk about achieving the
Headline Goal of an EU reaction force.

Which was what the summit was primarily about.

Also, the "summit" appeared to

Post by ESLaPorte
duplicate NATO's Prague Capabilities Commitments, with Eastern European
nations left out of the niche capabilities that they already have achieved
high competence within NATO.

Eastern European forces are largely slated for a 'peace keeping'
function at the moment, not 'rapid reaction'.

Post by ESLaPorte
Nations that were excluded were a bit upset by the notion that a few
nations, lead by France, would dictate European security and defense policy
to other nations. There appears to be a two tiered development is European
defense where some nations "lead and others follow."

Not everyone can 'follow' if you don't have the capability.

This notion is grounded

Post by ESLaPorte
in inequality among members of the Union and that was evident during
France's proposal that Europe proceed to integrate at "two speeds."

This has got nothing to do with European defence policy. It is a
separate issue.

Post by ESLaPorte
Poland was rightfully upset by this prospect and the notion that a block of
European nations could create and impose their version of European security
and defense policy. Also upset by the prospect of a weakened NATO was
Canada, which is so often left out of transatlantic discussions. Canada is
one nation that needs a strong transatlantic relationship and Atlantic
Alliance to ensure her security.

The E.U. is careful to state that such developments are intended to
augment, not subvert the NATO structure. No-one knows what the future
of NATO will be.

Likewise, Turkey also is in need of a

Post by ESLaPorte
strong Atlantic Alliance

Turkey is not an E.U. member.

- and there are some European leaders - in France -

Post by ESLaPorte
that don't regard Turkey as European and not event worth defending.

There is a problem with Turkey's democratic credentials, together with
its national minority problem.

This

Post by ESLaPorte
kind of selfishness and exclusion of a fellow democracy is not practiced in
our NATO Alliance.

Yes...just let two of its members knock hell out of each
other....that's what almost happened when Turkey invaded Cyprus.

Post by ESLaPorte
We just cannot afford the distraction that an EU vs. NATO competition in
defense would cause in this dangerous age, as well as the pointless cost in
scarce resources.

We are, I think, talking about command and control - not hardware.

In this dangerous age the game that some European nations

Post by ESLaPorte
are playing - lead by France - places our entire civilization at risk.

And that is just hot air....

At a

Post by ESLaPorte
time when the Atlantic Alliance should be strengthened,

Strengthened in what way? Of course, it doesn't help that no-one in
Europe really trusts George Bush. Look what he did for our Prime
Minister (currently swinging in the wind).

there are those

Post by ESLaPorte
European nations that are attempting to damage or destroy our unity in the
Atlantic Alliance in the name of an competing "Euroarmy" that exists only on
paper - and especially would exclude other democratic nations from a
meaningful collective security system, namely Canada and Turkey.

Both of which aren't in the E.U.

Post by ESLaPorte
You will notice that the open instigator of the transatlantic trouble and
the most ambitious in attempting to openly damage NATO is France.

And Germany. And Benelux.

The fact

Post by ESLaPorte
that France in leading this dangerous game is no accident. Go and read
Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration." Brent Nelsen
and Alexender Stubb, eds. Lynn Rienner, London, UK. p. 27-44. (1998).

De Gaulle is long dead....

God, this is tedious rubbish.

Dr. Barry Worthington

Uno Hu

2004-01-29 02:51:08 UTC

Post by Barry Worthington
Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union.

The soviet union is not defunct.
It just changed its name for a while.

Uno Hu

Barry Worthington

2004-01-29 09:47:15 UTC

Post by Barry Worthington
Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union.

The soviet union is not defunct.
It just changed its name for a while.
Uno Hu

It must be an interesting experience to exhibit that degree of
simplicity in your thought process.....

Dr. Barry Worthington

Dmitry

2004-01-29 22:19:24 UTC

Post by Barry Worthington
Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union.

The soviet union is not defunct.
It just changed its name for a while.
Uno Hu

It must be an interesting experience to exhibit that degree of
simplicity in your thought process.....

"Stupidity" instead of "simplicity" would probably be more
representative for a description of Uno Hu's perception of things.

Post by Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

Uno Hu

2004-01-30 03:35:08 UTC

Post by Dmitry

Post by Barry Worthington
Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union.

The soviet union is not defunct.
It just changed its name for a while.
Uno Hu

It must be an interesting experience to exhibit that degree of
simplicity in your thought process.....

"Stupidity" instead of "simplicity" would probably be more
representative for a description of Uno Hu's perception of things.

Post by Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

So where do you categorize your stupid self - as you have been
comprehensively corrected by me?

Be careful in you valuations... you are at the bottom of any pile
after all.

Uno Hu

Barry Worthington

2004-01-30 10:31:56 UTC

Post by Dmitry

Post by Barry Worthington
Actually, it doesn't. The NATO alliance was created to withstand a
preceived external threat to Western Europe from the (now defunct)
Soviet Union.

The soviet union is not defunct.
It just changed its name for a while.
Uno Hu

It must be an interesting experience to exhibit that degree of
simplicity in your thought process.....

"Stupidity" instead of "simplicity" would probably be more
representative for a description of Uno Hu's perception of things.

Post by Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington

So where do you categorize your stupid self - as you have been
comprehensively corrected by me?
Be careful in you valuations... you are at the bottom of any pile
after all.
Uno Hu

Who do you happen to be talking to?

Dr. Barry Worthington

Dmitry

2004-01-31 02:14:31 UTC

Post by Dmitry