Son, you’re way behind the times. Was the U.S. attacked by Bosnian Serbs, Yugoslavians or Macedonians?
huh? huh? was it?
And if the time comes when those two countries no longer share common goals or support common ends then what is wrong with admitting the obvious and saying “this sure isn’t the alliance it once was” which is, in effect, what the spokesman said?
When Czechoslovakia defied the Warsaw Pact Soviet Tanks roled through the streets of Prague. Any Germans or Frenchman out there actually worrying about a U.S. invasion? In fact, it seems to me that the Bush administration has put up with quite a great deal of “less than diplomatic” behavior on the part of some of our allies and has shown a great deal of tact and restraint.
I’d consider an asassination attempt on the president to be an “attack”, albeit unsuccessful.
And I thought that France’s ploy was pretty transparent- claim that you won’t act without a new UN resolution and get the US to agree to it, then when it’s time to vote on it, exercise your veto power to shoot it down.
Dad, you’re way off the point being made.
The U.S. wasn’t attacked, so France is under no obligation whatsoever to join in a war against Iraq.
What on earth has the NATO action against the Serbs proove?
Here too, France was not obliged to participate. They chose to do so anyway.
What is your point???
Put me solidly in Poly’s camp.
The point is that NATO hasn’t been a strictly defensive alliance for some years. It’s role has changed, so much so that in April of 1999 NATO leaders meeting in Washington dropped the phrase “….the Alliance is purely defensive in purpose: None of its weapons will ever be used except in self-defense……" from the NATO Charter.
At that same meeting President Clinton stated “Today we reaffirmed our readiness in appropriate circumstances to address regional and ethnic conflicts beyond the territory of NATO members. I am pleased that our strategic concept specifically endorses the actions to such as those we are now undertaking in Kosovo.”
Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Macedonia are all examples of NATO acting in this new non-defensive role.
The point is that any talk about NATO being only a mutual defense pact is ancient history.
No one, aside from yourself, has stated or implied that France is “obligated” to do anything. If they act alongside the U.S. out of a sense of shared goals then they are a “good” ally. If they will not act alongside the U.S.; either because they don’t share the same goals, or for any other reason, then aren’t they being something less than the best of allies?
The US is frequently attacked by Iraq as it patrols the no fly zones. These are attacks against the US.
Or which she sees as a threat to her oil interests in the region.
Apart from the oil angle, France is also (as previously noted) flexing its muscles as a leading power of the EU, much to the annoyance of the UK (and possibly other countries). I suspect it’s less concerned with its NATO membership and military ties than with its economic ones.
I think the US should go to war with France. France is known to have weapons of mass destruction, and has a history of invading other countries. (See, for example, Bonaparte.) Obviously they cannot be trusted, and containment isn’t working, since they haven’t dismantled their nuclear program.
Zigaretten, It is still the allience it once was.
It’s just that in this case there are no shared goals/views.
Is someone a “bad” ally when he doesn’t jump to everything the other party does?
Latro…
No it is not still the alliance it once was. NATO was formed to counter the threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. But that threat no longer exists (or at least it’s pretty unlikely.) So the big question these days is “just what is the role of NATO?”
And that is something which is still being worked out.
It may well be that NATO no longer has a viable role. If the various countries of the alliance don’t actually work together then what is the point of maintaining some “pretend” pact? And right now the most important foreign policy issue on the U.S. agenda is war with Iraq.
If NATO supports the U.S. then the Pact would certainly appear to have some value to us. If they don’t support us then, on this issue at least, the Pact is worthless to the U.S. Now, let’s be blunt, neither the U.S. or any other country is likely to leave NATO over the Iraqi issue. But in the long run, if NATO doesn’t provide some kind of advantage to each and every member, then each and every member has every right to withdraw. France withdrew in 1966 and the U.S. certainly has the right to withdraw in the future.
So countries like France and Germany (and the Netherlands) are going to have to balance their own self interests with their interest in keeping NATO a viable force, just like the U.S. does. Sending U.S. forces to Bosnia wasn’t universally popular in this country and I suspect that the President would have prefered to be able to ignore the situation, but he recognized that we have a responsibility to NATO and Europe in general.
If any country decides that their own self interests are more important than the alliance, then they become a “bad” ally. Remember, being a bad ally to the U.S. doesn’t make one a “bad” country. There are plenty of perfectly decent countries out there that aren’t “good” allies.
This little soundbite has little-to-nothing to do with administration policy:
Attributing his views to the administration is equivalent to quoting a school’s PTA president and assuming that he speaks for the school board.
Now, when Colin Powell says “We’re sick of the way the French have been behaving and it’s time to do something about it,” then there will be something of substance to talk about.
I was going to type something but others have beat me to it, so in short.
a resounding YES
Man, I hope that you guys who are trumpeting the right of France to turn away from an ally when it suits its purposes weren’t complaining at any time in the past about U.S. ‘unilateralism’.
What has the U.S.'s dander up (and apparently has Colin Powell spitting nails in fury) isn’t that France isn’t supporting the U.S.
What France did was actually try to submarine the U.S.'s attempts to get U.N. approval. From all reports, Colin Powell made a compromise with France - The U.S. would agree to a second resolution to justify the war, and in return France would support the U.S. on that second resolution. France agreed, and then a week ago did a 180 degree turn and announced its intention to veto a second resolution.
If that’s the case, then France needs to be punished for its duplicity. Not through war, obviously. But through marginalization. Watch, as the U.S. creates a transatlantic free trade zone with Britain, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Norway, Italy, Spain, and other countries in Europe, but NOT with France. Watch, as Britain rises in power in the EU, which begins to move its ‘center’ towards Britain and away from France and Germany.
Here in Canada, our government has been acting much like the French (abeit without the direct intervention in the U.N.). But it certainly hasn’t been supporting the U.S. position. And now Canada is balking over keeping its commitments to NORAD.
The result? Well, what do you know? The U.S. is calling for 45% tariffs on Canadian softwood. The U.S. is cracking down at the borders. THe U.S. is threatening to leave Canada undefended from ballistic missiles. And I think this is exactly proper. Alliances are supposed to mean something. They mean you give your allies the benefit of the doubt. They mean that you lean towards your allies first. And if you’re not willig to do that, you should realize that there are consequences.
Interesting. In these parts anti-war protestors chant “No blood for oil”. Are you saying in Canada they chant “No blood for wood”?
While your point about alliances is granted, your first example leaves a little to be desired. The US has been hammering away at softwood lumber subsidies for years now. This is just their latest attempt at ridiculous actions that have been disallowed time and time again. Even the US Softwood Lumber industry doesn’t want them, just a couple of western governors. Bush’s attitude about Free Trade so far has been “We’re free to trade however we want to.”
I still remember my days on SSBNs in the late 70s. We dodged the French navy with a LOT more alacrity than we did the evil Russians. Reason? The French had slightly better sonar and weren’t trusted not to leak our position to God knows who.
The French look out for number 1 which is right and proper on their part. The US, in turn, should do the same next time the French get their tails in a crack. Ivory Coast comes to mind as a possible problem for them.
Testy
That’s my point; if it is the administration’s position, who better to articulate it than someone who can be distanced from the President if it is politically expedient? My question is, would the President ask Perle to float this view as a trial balloon to see if it is popular, before letting Powell or others directly linked to the President say the same thing?
Exactly how were we supposed to fulfill such obligations at the time? Our sea-controlling navy? Our roll-over-everything-in-it’s-path army? Niether of which actually existed in any way, shape or form.
Sam Stone said:
I know nothing about the NORAD stuff. Would you mind filling me in?
I have to say that this Canadian is not at all upset about his government not supporting the U.S. position.
Of course there are consequences. And we’ll have to deal with them. But allowing the threat of those consequences to dictate whether or not we support a war in Iraq would be morally wrong.
Yes, alliances are supposed to mean something. But the thing about alliances is that they are made between sovereign nations, and they imply a partnership. I don’t see the U.S.'s actions in this as the actions of a partner. I see them as the actions of a boss.
And let me tell you, Sam, the U.S. ain’t the boss of me.
Hell, my own country ain’t the boss of me.
And that little conflict building overseas is gonna give both sides (and maybe even us) more than a little shrapnel in the knees. 
Vive la France!