You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Belgium proposes Nato compromise
2003-02-16
Belgium says it is ready to end its veto of Nato military aid to Turkey.
Did the French give them permission?
Along with France and Germany, Brussels has been blocking a plan to send aid to Turkey, saying it could undermine efforts to find a diplomatic solution to avert war with Iraq. The Alliance is due to meet in Brussels on Sunday and make a fresh attempt to solve one of the worst crises in its 50-year history. The first meeting will involve Nato's Defence Planning Committee, on which France is not trusted or represented, followed by a full meeting of all 19 Nato ambassadors. EU foreign ministers are due to hold an emergency summit on Iraq on Monday, and diplomatic sources say that a breakthrough on the Nato deadlock could come on the fringes of that meeting. Belgium says it would agree to military aid for Turkey, if Nato makes clear that it is purely defensive and is not paving the war for a military build-up for an Iraq war.
Seeing as that's what Turkey wanted in the first place ...
Belgium "wants to avoid above all that this decision is a first step in a build-up to war", said Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. He said his government had been talking to Paris and Berlin in an effort to stall and delay find common ground. But there is still no clear indication of whether France and Germany would be prepared to follow the Belgian lead. Nato held several days of inconclusive talks last week in an attempt to resolve the issue. The US has argued that Nato was obliged under its treaty to provide military support to Turkey, the only member state which borders directly on Iraq. But France, which has firmly opposed any precipitate military action against Iraq, told its Nato allies that it could prejudice the Security Council debate on the issue by appearing to prepare to war.
And it would have sent a further signal to Sammy that we were serious, and the French can't have that, can they?
The US is still hoping that Turkey will allow at least one army division to be stationed there in the run-up to possible military action. Ankara is due to make a decision as early as Tuesday on whether to allow its bases to be used. A Nato commitment to help Turkey's own defences would, the Pentagon believes, help its case.
If the Turks fail to go forward on Tuesday, we'll know there's serious trouble.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  I propose that the UN move to Pyongyang.
Posted by: RW   2003-02-16 14:40:44  

#7  I think NATO will move to London.

The UN will move to Geneva.
Posted by: john   2003-02-16 14:32:18  

#6  --not paving the war(?)y for a military build-up???

What, 9(?) carriers, 150K++ men and machines in that arena, yet putting stuff in Turkey means we're going to war?

So, Turkey's got to agree to get hit first and then use the stuff? Oh, yeah, I want to join this.

They need to lay off the cocoa.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-02-16 14:31:31  

#5  Pace #1, I'd say it's time to move NATO headquarters. How about Prague?
Posted by: YankInParis   2003-02-16 13:44:11  

#4  Rule #2 in war: act with resolute unity of purpose. Last September President Bush announced that the U.S. would have no role in the "social policies" of the post-Saddam Iraq. Curiously, he did that only days after his Texas meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar. Please read the following, and ask yourself if Bush is not handing Iraq to the Wahabis:
http://www.arabview.com/article.asp?artID=55
If the Saudi controlled Gulf Co-operation Council has wanted Saddam Hussein out for at least 7 years, then would not the GGC (read: the House of Saud) want the dictator removed without getting Muslim hands dirty?

Bush has been trumpeting counter-terror, while placing American resources in the hands of the two largest terrorist states in the world: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Where is the resolute purpose in this?

Posted by: Anon   2003-02-16 13:06:41  

#3  I think that it is very important that the evolution of our relationship with the various European countries continue. France, Germany, and Belgium have shown their true colors. Let us not accommodate those that have stabbed us and Turkey in the back. Make the changes and adjustments and protect our friends as we have and we should. Walk away from our fair-weather friends and get on with it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-02-16 13:02:03  

#2  Ford's subsidiary is Volvo. The dog ate that word in my original comment.
Posted by: Peter   2003-02-16 06:18:52  

#1  Has somebody pointed out to the moral conscience of the world, Louis Michel and his prime minister Verhofstadt, that
1) NATO headquarters are in Brussels and employ quite a few Belgian civilians ?
2) GM, Ford and Ford's subsidiary have car assembly plants in the country despite the extremely high labor costs, while certain countries in Eastern Europe are not averse to American investments ?
3) A not inconsiderable number of American chemical companies operate in the port of Antwerp ?
4) A port called Rotterdam is quite nearby and very willing to do all kinds of business with American costumers ?

Those sound like good questions to me.
Posted by: Peter   2003-02-16 06:17:47  

00:00