NATO and Turkey

Great Debates
21

What a jumble of nonsense. First off, you might recall that was the entire justification for the attack on Afghanistan: that the Taliban were using their territory. Or are you saying that war was not justified then? Secondly, China did not attack the USA at any time. The USA and China have fought a number of wars by proxy in other small countries and neitehr side wanted to escalate the war further.

But if Irak or any other country got permission to set up camp in Canada and started flying sorties out of Canada and shooting missiles at the USA, are you seriously thinking the USA would respect Canada as “neutral”. Gimme a break.

Turkey is in ZERO danger of being attacked by Irak unless Turkey attacks Irak first. As simple as that. NATO is not an offensive alliance, it is a defensive alliance. If Turkey is minding it’s own business and it is attacked, then NATO countries should come to its aid. But if Turkey decides to participate in a war of aggression, then NATO countries have every right to tell Turkey they are on their own.

22

This is nonsense.

Your talking about three countries with vast and varied histories and claiming they almost always make bad calls in Foreign Policy?

I don’t want to hijack this thread so start another one, try and back up your arguments and we’ll go off to the races Boyo.

23

I assume your not actually in the EU, France and Germany are NOT seen as the bullies and infact maintain the popular support of the EU.

24

My personal interpretation is that the action of France, Germany and Belgium is exactly in opposition to the mutual defense point of NATO. Their stated reason IIRC relates to not wanting to defend Turkey if Turkey helped in the attack on Iraq. That makes no sense, if looked at solely within the context of NATO. It only makes sense if viewed within the broader context of France’s and Germany’s push to avoid an attack on Iraq by parties other than NATO.

25

Okay, this might be a little hijack, but I’m wondering… “Irak?” Amerika… Afrika… Is “k” now shorthand for “evil” or something?

26

But France, Germany and Belgium have no obligation to defend Turkey when it is involved in an offensive attack on another nation, the auspice of NATO is to defend against aggression not to support other countries in offensive wars.

27

Iraq is in the English spelling, Irak is the French spelling.

28

Ulterior said :" Second, if the Kurds, for instance, take advantage of the situation and start stirring things up on both sides of the border, then it isn’t Turkey-as-aggressor here."

That would be just perfect wouldn’t it? The NATO alliance finally getting off it’s butt and helping partner Turkey wipe out the Kurds, in a “defensive” measure of course.

29

No, their stated position (not reason) is their refusal to defend Turkey if attacked by Iraq. Their stated reason for that position is that an attack by Iraq if brought upon by an act of aggression rather than defence is not covered by the mutual defense pact. In the larger context, this has nothing in particular to do with US and Iraq but everything to do with the nature of the NATO pact.

30

Fox – there is a thread a few days back about French foreign policy. Your hijack point is well-taken, though, so while I will stand by it as a matter of broad-brush description, it was a poor attempt at being glib and it had no place here. Withdrawn.

MC – you are correct in your assumption. I will stand by, however, both (1) that the leaders of EU governments feel more bullied by France/Germany than by the US, popular support notwithstanding; and (2) that the US’s actions are more cowboy/unilateral than coerce-some-allies. Of course, I do not see how labeling the US a “cowboy” is a defense of its policy. I also agree with your interpretation of the NATO charter.

31

According to this AP Report it isn’t that Turkey doesn’t have the right to be defended, it’s well, the timing.

Their worried that a buildup of protection in Turkey would send Sadam the wrong signal.

:wally

32

sailor: Please avail yourself of the nearest History book which covers the Korean Conflict. If that book is any good, you will find in it a description of the Chinese troops which fought against the US and other troops fighting there.

33

I know full well what happened in Korea. As I said, China and the USA were fighting each other there. So what? You seem to be missing my point which is that China never attacked the US mainland. The USA and China were helping different sides in Korea. So what?

And the Chinese government had very good reasons to hate the USA who had just recently intervened on the nationalist side during the Chinese civil war and who were the sole reason Taiwan remained out of their control.

And december, as is his usual, totally fails to see the point of the OP which is that a war of aggression is not a war of defense which is the only thing covered by NATO.

34

Let’s be clear here - the only reason Germany and France are doing this is because they see it as yet another way to throw a wrench in the U.S. war plan.

Turkey’s borders would be at risk whether or not Turkey helped the U.S. In fact, you could make the claim that Turkey is helping the U.S. because it needs to defend its borders. If Turkey had refused, and the U.S. did not station troops there, then hundreds of thousands could swarm over the Turkish Border and there could be Kurdish uprisings on both sides. And that may happen anyway.

So Turkey is caught in a tough spot no matter what it does. So it calls out to NATO for help, and France and Germany refuse because they have ulterior motives. Nice allies.

Remember, we’re talking about 16 other nations who have agreed to help Turkey, including countries like Canada which are NOT supporting the U.S. but recognize their obligations.

If this situation were turned around, and every NATO country agreed to go to the aid of another but the U.S. vetoed it, you’d all be screaming about U.S. unilateralism. But France and Germany get a pass.

And you know why France and Germany are doing this? Is it because of their high moral standards? Is it because they believe the U.S. is wrong? Nope. France is trying to protect its economic OIL interests in Iraq, and both France and Germany may have a lot to hide with respect to selling weapons and materials to Iraq in the 90’s in violation of the sanctions. A U.S. war and subsequent opening of all of Iraq’s books may be very embarassing to both those countries.

35

I agree that France, Germany and Russia’s motives are questionable and as you pointed out, largely economic. But, I feel that US’s motives are questionable too. IMHO, necessary conditions for waging a war with Iraq exist, but I think the move by the administration to classify them as sufficient is politically motivated.

Are you going to claim that the US is doing this out of unadulterated sincerety and moral clarity?

36

So you are saying that for them going into war and not going into war is all the same. The only reason they have for not going into war is to spite the USA. Life must be pretty boring in a country where people don’t mind going to war for no reason but decide not to do it just to spite the USA. I’d like to hear from some French or German dopers to see if life in their countries is really that bad.

Absolutely false. Irak has no intention of attacking Turkey that anyone knows of. If and when Irak does attack Turkey then is the time for Turkey to call Nato but not when it is Turkey who is getting ready for the agression.

You can claim anything you want and it still doesn’t make it true. Every war of aggression has been justified by the aggressor with the reason that they were defending themselves.

The NATO treaty says they will help each other out if one is attacked, not if one decides to attack someone else. France and Germany righfully feel they have no abligation under NATO and I agree.

Oh give me a break. Like the USA does not care or defend its own interests. The only thing the USA is defending is its interests. France trades with Iraq and wants to defend their trade. So what? The USA trades with other countries and would also defend their trade, to the point of going to war over it.

37

I strongly support Germany and Frances efforts to slow the headlong rush to war. Nonetheless, I think they should follow through on their obligations to Turkey. The NATO alliance should be bigger than this.

It would be entirely honorable, and entirely reasonable, to offer defensive assistance to Turkey. In the unlikely occurance that Iraq attacks Turkey, Germany and France should be there. They can make thier case clear, they can certainly refuse any offensive deployment, and I think they would be right to do so. But they should be available to a friend and ally as a defensive force.

38

Turkey isn’t under threat of attack from Iraq per se. It’s under threat of a Kurdish uprising, the possibility of a breakaway Kurdish state, and much violence.

Wow, what a strawman. Where did I say anything about the people’s motives? The French GOVERNMENT’s motives are to A) keep its oil contracts and other trade, and B) possibly, to prevent the extent of their aid to Iraq from becoming known. Don’t forget, the French built the reactor at Osirak that the Israelis bombed.

Russia also has strong financial interests. Russia has oil contracts and is owed $3 billion by Saddam’s government. I believe Russia is a pretty big trading partner (almost 1.5 billion dollars a year - more than with any other country in the Middle East).

France and Germany are also (mis)playing a power game in the EU. They want France and Germany to be the power center of the EU, and are trying to establish themselves as it.

This, as much as solidarity with the U.S., explains why the Vilnius countries issued that statement of support for the U.S. It’s part of the internal power struggle within the EU.

39

Jeez sailor, you sound like me arguing that the US is not obligated to strictly act through the UN.

True France and Belgium is not obligated* under article IV to do anything accept discuss it and vote. Even if Turkey was not complacent with the upcoming war and was attacked. They were not obligated to support the US in Afghanistan either.

Article IV says: “Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence of security of any of the parties is threatened.”

It says nothing about a purely defensive roll either. As a matter of fact, I have failed to see anywhere is the treaty that states it is nulled if one is the aggressor. It says they will help defend if their territories are attacked. They are pretty specific on that point. Yet inexplicit on what they would call a legitimate attack. So I do not see where you get your assertion that their “obligation” is somehow changed with Turkey’s support of an Iraq war.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

The kicker is that your arguemnt is not even relevant to France and Belgiums stance. They assert that Turkey is not in danger because they are saying there will be no war (if they have anything to say about it). They did acknowledge that if Turkey was under a threat, that they felt obligated, or the desire, to help defend Turkey.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D7P3MHPG0.xml

This is just a political ploy. Nothing more, nothing less. They are doing whatever they can to stop action against Iraq. It has nothing to do with Turkey being an agressor.

The sad thing about all of this is it is a lose lose situation. Both sides have alot of face to lose if war does or deos not happen. What is pathetic is that France and her cohorts will not see, until the eleventh hour, that they do not have the power to make the other side back down. And by then the damage will be done. They may garner some accolades for facing down the bully, but every forum they used thier power in to do so will be damaged. The UN, NATO, and freindly relations with opposing states.

http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/11/int3.htm

As Kissinger wrote : Without a change of government in Iraq, “the credibility of American power in the war on terrorism and in international affairs will be gravely, perhaps, irreparably, impaired,”

“If the United States yields to the threat of a French veto, or if Iraq, encouraged by the action of our allies, evades the shrinking non-military options still available, the result will be a catastrophe for the Atlantic alliance and for the international order,” Mr Kissinger said.

You’re right. The US does defend her interests. Too bad France is deciding to step in front of that semi.

40

But if Russia attacked Turkey from behind, would Greece help?