Future of Nato and the UN?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-11 05:40am

Step one in clearing up the UN is removing France from the Secruity Conciule and I can see Bush Jr trying for just that after the Iraq situation is resolved

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-11 06:33am

Invader ZIm wrote:Not in any significant way.

Remove the US Troops from Germany and Germany will get paranoid about Russia. Which will lead to a military build up.

Of course then France will get paranoid about Germany...and so on.

I severely doubt Germany has any parnoia about Russia. Not only is Russia's military incapable of mounting such an offensive operation, there is absolutely no purpose, and it would have to go through several former Warsaw Pact members to get there. Combined with the fact that Germany has big investments in Russia ..... the old days are gone.

Especially hurt by this were AMX and Dassault, as it was shown that both companies products were incapable of even token resistence to American warplanes and tanks.

That may have something to do with the pathetic nature of the crews of these French weapons. French stuff is good quality. Need I remind everyone that much the same thing happened to the Mirage in the hands of the Israelis? It kicked so much ass even though it was a pretty unremarkable fighter, and started selling bigtime because of the way it was flown, rather than any inherent overmatch.

As for this surrendering stuff, it'd be nice if the French got a fair shake for once. Jeezus, they may have been ground into the dust by the Wehrmacht, but they did fight, and die. Germany didn't cross the border and the French just threw up their arms. The French defeat was because of mismanagement, not out and out cowardice.

Germany especially has withheld spare parts for German weapons Turkey has (Leopard tanks etc) because of human rights abuses. I fucking respect them for that.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-02-11 07:11am

So, what is the procedure for revoking a nation's membership in NATO? We can debate whether or not Germany, France and Belgium have legally breached the NATO charter, but they most definatlely violated the spirit of the charter. They ignored Turkey's activation of article IV, and that sets a dangerous precedent. What the hell good is the treaty if member nations ignore, or even undermine aNother member's activation of Article IV?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-11 07:27am

Article 4, which is the article in question, states that the members of NATO “will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” The key words here are “will consult.”

This morning, in response to the three countries’ refusal to send arms, Turkey invoked this article and called an emergency meeting of the alliance. Initially, according to one U.S. official, Belgium, France, and Germany all tried to block even this meeting — though, toward the end of the day, they relented. Had the three persisted in opposing this meeting, then, yes, they would have been in violation of the letter and spirit of the NATO Charter. (Note that Article 4 says the members must consult whenever there’s a threat merely “in the opinion of any of them.” It could be a threat in the opinion of a psychotic; it doesn’t have to be backed up.)

However, there is nothing in the charter that says the alliance — or every member of the alliance — must agree to send arms as a prudent measure in preparation for a preventive war.

'Spirit' does not count for anything in treaties. They are legal documents, and should be treated as such. In law, it means what it says.

They ignored Turkey's activation of article IV

They consulted near the end of the day.

In my opinion, this was just a bullshit ploy for Turkey to try and get arms on the cheap. As I said, Germany is hard on Turkey for human rights abuses- some 60% of it's Leopard tank fleet, IIRC, is out of action due to lack of spares, for example.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-02-11 07:52am

Coyote wrote:I take comfort in knowing that the US has a few nukes targeted towards France. Or at least we did, during the Cold War, when France withdrew from NATO and said they'd defend their own borders from ANY nation that encroached on them...

The frenchs have a few SSBNs,each of them armed with 96 nuclear warheads,150 kilotons each.Have a nice game.

If I recall correctly the germans have nearly a couple of thousands of Leopard 2, enough to deal with whatever the russians can throw against them.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-11 08:09am

Vympel wrote: 'Spirit' does not count for anything in treaties. They are legal documents, and should be treated as such. In law, it means what it says.

Spirit most certainly does count for something in diplomacy. If you know that you have an ally that will use any loophole in the wording to avoiding helping you in a crisis, you know you have, in fact, no ally at all.

Vympel wrote: They consulted near the end of the day.

In my opinion, this was just a bullshit ploy for Turkey to try and get arms on the cheap. As I said, Germany is hard on Turkey for human rights abuses- some 60% of it's Leopard tank fleet, IIRC, is out of action due to lack of spares, for example.

Bullshit ploy? Turkey shares several hundred miles of border with Iraq, and there is no telling just what Saddam Hussein might do in the event of a war, especially given the fact that, all his bluster aside, he knows he can't beat U.S. troops in the air or on the ground. I think the Turkish government is justifiably concerned. And these same Germans you are praising for witholding things from the Turks on humanitarian grounds seem quite happy to do business with the Iraqis, who are far worse. I suspect their reasons for slighting the Turks may have as much to do with an effort to pressure Turkey to stem the huge flow of Turkish immigrants into Germany as with humanitarianism - a quality historically lacking in most government decisions, in any country.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-02-11 08:29am

In my opnion it does not really factor.The public opinion of the european countries,at least the western ones,is very anti war.Some leaders do not care,as they prefer to be under Bush desk even if this means losing popularity.Some others do,for electoral reasons,more than anything else.This is for example the case of Germany.
My country for example has economical ties with Iraq as well, but our current PM drools when he is with Bush,so we go with the USA.

By the way,those Abrams tanks in the Saudi inventory are most certainly not "made in France".

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-02-11 08:34am

Perinquus wrote:
Spirit most certainly does count for something in diplomacy. If you know that you have an ally that will use any loophole in the wording to avoiding helping you in a crisis, you know you have, in fact, no ally at all.

I was unaware that a treaty that dictates consultation *really* means that every country is obligated to send arms at the drop of a hat. Some loophole.

Bullshit ploy? Turkey shares several hundred miles of border with Iraq, and there is no telling just what Saddam Hussein might do in the event of a war, especially given the fact that, all his bluster aside, he knows he can't beat U.S. troops in the air or on the ground. I think the Turkish government is justifiably concerned.

From what? An Iraqi invasion of Turkey? Pahleeze. Turkey could hold off the entire Iraqi Army if it wanted to, excluding the US forces stationed in Turkey and enforcing the no-fly zone.

And these same Germans you are praising for witholding things from the Turks on humanitarian grounds seem quite happy to do business with the Iraqis, who are far worse.

Germany does not administer a no-fly zone over Iraq which is shut down so Turkey can go perform 'special missions' on Kurds in the North which the US is theoretically protecting. Quite frankly, I am entirely unsympathetic towards Turkey. They inflict shit on their Kurdish population much as Saddam does, but their status as ally makes them immune to criticism. If they want arms, they should clean up their act.

I suspect their reasons for slighting the Turks may have as much to do with an effort to pressure Turkey to stem the huge flow of Turkish immigrants into Germany as with humanitarianism - a quality historically lacking in most government decisions, in any country.

Arms sales laws in Germany dating from the Kohl era have a clause that includes human rights considerations. You must back up your claim that it has something to do with pressuring Turkey about immigrant flow.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-02-11 09:47am

Vympel wrote: I was unaware that a treaty that dictates consultation *really* means that every country is obligated to send arms at the drop of a hat. Some loophole.

I was unaware that a Turkish request to formulate plans to send military assistance in the event of an Iraqi attack constituted sending arms at the drop of a hat.

Vympel wrote: From what? An Iraqi invasion of Turkey? Pahleeze. Turkey could hold off the entire Iraqi Army if it wanted to, excluding the US forces stationed in Turkey and enforcing the no-fly zone.

Very possibly it could. However, we are dealing with a not entirely rational dictator in possession of both chemical and biological weapons. If he considers his back to be against the wall, he may just decide to do something like this, even if it makes no kind of military sense. It's not likely, since he'd probably elect to hit Israel first, if he launches attacks at anybody, but the Turks are requesting NATO draw up plans to deal with this eventuality, and that's it so far. The French and the Germans are refusing to consider it.

Vympel wrote: Germany does not administer a no-fly zone over Iraq which is shut down so Turkey can go perform 'special missions' on Kurds in the North which the US is theoretically protecting. Quite frankly, I am entirely unsympathetic towards Turkey. They inflict shit on their Kurdish population much as Saddam does, but their status as ally makes them immune to criticism. If they want arms, they should clean up their act.

Either the NATO alliance is meaningful or it is not. When two member states can stall discussions about the possible defense of another in the event it is attacked, one has to wonder just how seriously they are taking their commitment to that alliance.

Vympel wrote: Arms sales laws in Germany dating from the Kohl era have a clause that includes human rights considerations. You must back up your claim that it has something to do with pressuring Turkey about immigrant flow.

I said I suspect, not that I claim. Suspicion is not the same as assertion.

Gambler · Post by **Gambler** » 2003-02-11 11:37am

The Dark wrote:Sort of as an aside, France is the nation that commits the most espionage against the United States, particularly American defense industries. Lockheed Martin employeesare specifically warned any time they travel to France to watch out for SDECE personnel attempting to obtain information from them. They, Japan, and Israel are the three worst, and we still somehow remain allied with them. I will never understand how governments work.

No wonder France tries to spy the USA look at the CIA they perform industial espionage in Germany and France and sell this information to american and british companies.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-02-11 11:38am

Gambler wrote:
The Dark wrote:Sort of as an aside, France is the nation that commits the most espionage against the United States, particularly American defense industries. Lockheed Martin employeesare specifically warned any time they travel to France to watch out for SDECE personnel attempting to obtain information from them. They, Japan, and Israel are the three worst, and we still somehow remain allied with them. I will never understand how governments work.
No wonder France tries to spy the USA look at the CIA they perform industial espionage in Germany and France and sell this information to american and british companies.

Proof?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-11 12:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:Ah, if only we could convince France and Germany to go to war with each other once more

Just send the Red Army westward once again

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-02-11 01:26pm

phongn wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Ah, if only we could convince France and Germany to go to war with each other once more
Just send the Red Army westward once again

Russia has an army?

Last I remember, all they had was a hella lot of underpaid commoners with the keys to the higher grade weapons

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-11 05:25pm

There is a great deal of truth to the claim that the Turkish Army could roll up Iraq like a cheap carpet without any help from the outside, especially if the Iraqis were so foolish as to invade.

The only wild card would be one side or the other swinging the Kurds in their direction-- both sides have treated the Kurds like shit, and both sides can offer the Kurds concessions to bargain with.

In a situation like this, the Turks-- if they were smart, and I believe they are-- would crush Iraq and then carve off North Iraq to be a Kurdish state (or at least an autonomous zone, which it sorta is already) and let the Kurds become a new buffer zone...

But the whole scenario is unlikely from the pov of Iraq starting with the Turks in the first place...

France's problem is their many ties to the Arabic wiorld in business, culture, and as former colonial masters trying to make good. A HUGE number of Arabs and Muslims (as well as Algerian Berber descendants) live in France, and they are a constituency that cannot be ignored-- as surely as voting blocs among Blacks, Jews (and to a lesser extent Gays) are courted. I frequently get pissed off at France even though every French person I've met I really liked, but rationally they have to walk a thin line when it comes to the MidEast.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-11 05:25pm

Coaan wrote:Russia has an army?

Last I remember, all they had was a hella lot of underpaid commoners with the keys to the higher grade weapons

Oh my God! It's a Militia!

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-02-11 09:18pm

The Dark wrote: Russia seems to be a wildcard, given Putin's attempts to appease both sides, which traditionally has the effect of pissing off everyone. China will try to be everybody's friend, and nobody will really trust them (after Tianenmen, would you?).

No offence, but why mention Russia and China? They aren't part of NATO. Affect it, yes, with Russia I'd say having more influence. Unless you're talking about the UN here. Mind you, China did join the WTO.

Forgot to add this: if France is removed from the Security Council (Mr Bean's suggestion), should Japan take its place?

XPViking

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-02-11 11:35pm

They refuse any preperation for the defense of Turkey in case of a invasion, what does that say?

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-02-12 10:31pm

Maybe it is part of an elaborate plant to get Turkey to attack France.

Actually, if France was booted from NATO... who really would be the next contender on the list? Not Germany.... probably not Italy... Japan doesn't sem likely. India or Australia?

Curious.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-02-12 11:04pm

Vympel wrote:As for this surrendering stuff, it'd be nice if the French got a fair shake for once. Jeezus, they may have been ground into the dust by the Wehrmacht, but they did fight, and die. Germany didn't cross the border and the French just threw up their arms. The French defeat was because of mismanagement, not out and out cowardice.

OK, they're not cowards as much as they are idiots. Better?

Truth be told, it mostly was governmental incompetence. They had decent equipment, but they took forever to produce it.

XPViking: That paragraph was on the UN, specifically on how France, Germany, Russia, and China are the only four nations publicly and loudly stating disapproval of a war against Iraq.

Gambler wrote:No wonder France tries to spy the USA look at the CIA they perform industial espionage in Germany and France and sell this information to american and british companies.

While I'll admit plenty of ex-CIA assets work in corporations, quite possibly in espionage and/or the "gray market," I have not heard of any evidence of active CIA assets being assigned as moles to foreign corporations. SDECE agents have been caught in multiple high technology American firms including Texas Instruments. In fact, the CIA has become so overworked at providing counterintelligence assets that it has warned American corporations that they need to begin training counterintelligence personnel, as the CIA does not have sufficient trained personnel to stop our allies' spies, let alone our enemies. US corporations have lost an estimated $100,000,000,000 (100 billion) to foreign corporations conducting espionage.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-02-13 12:36am

They refuse any preperation for the defense of Turkey in case of a invasion, what does that say? - ArmourPierce

I was under the impression that France and Germany refused that. China and Russia are not a part of NATO.

Coyote: I'm not sure how the world can ignore the #2 economy. Mind you, some might see it as the US merely having another country in their corner on the Security Council.

The Dark: Fair enough.

Just to add my 2$: I don't think the UN will crumble though after these latest developments. It will be further weakened though if the US does indeed go at it alone.

XPViking