NATO approves request for defense from Turkey.

[Ronn_Bman]

AWACs etc will be provided. Belgiam and Germany dropped their objections leaving 18 of 19 members in favor of Turkey's request. France was shut out of talks earlier(I'm not exactly sure what that statement means, but I see it on TV).

[Ronn_Bman]

Apparently the French military withdraw from NATO in the 60's has left them off NATO's defense planning committee despite their eventual rejoining. The defense committee has made the decision to defend Turkey over France's continued objections. Despite their objections, this current decision forces France to help in the defense of Turkey despite any objection they may have.

I may be misinformed, but I this is what I've gathered from today's coverage.... I think.

[Sir Taliesin]

Bout time IMO! I was beginning to think that NATO was as out-dated as the UN is!

France did pull out their military from NATO back in the '60s. I think it was also a mutual agreement, since some of France's higher elected officals at the time were communist. It was thought my many in NATO that the communists might slip the Soviet Union some or all of NATO's military secrets.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: AWACs etc will be provided. Belgiam and Germany dropped their objections leaving 18 of 19 members in favor of Turkey's request. France was shut out of talks earlier(I'm not exactly sure what that statement means, but I see it on TV).

Not entirely correct. We (Belgium) offered up a compromise deal with wich the French agreed beforehand. It's a give and take situation. We gave up on a few points and the other partys did aswell. So we didn't drop our objections to the first proposal. We came up with our own. Call it creative partnership.

[Yorick]

I would presume an alliance that does not seek to defend a member if it's attacked is not really an alliance.

It would be hypocritical for NATO not to help Turkey if it's attacked. Extremely hypocritical. Why have NATO at all?

Either disband the whole alliance or stand by it in a members need.

[Yorick]

I just read the CNN article. It's a good thing. The decision relates to the defense of Turkey and that is all. Very sound IMO. Hear hear.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Yorick: I just read the CNN article. It's a good thing. The decision relates to the defense of Turkey and that is all. Very sound IMO. Hear hear.

I agree - while I defend the rights of the countries to choose their own postion on the war, the NATO treaty provisions should not have been used in such a a manner as to place pressure on Turkey (who has just as much right to agree with the US stance on the war as France has to disagree). You are either in a treaty or you are not.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Yorick: I would presume an alliance that does not seek to defend a member if it's attacked is not really an alliance. It would be hypocritical for NATO not to help Turkey if it's attacked. Extremely hypocritical. Why have NATO at all? Either disband the whole alliance or stand by it in a members need.

I originally posted this in the 'Apologies-thread':

"1. The problem is that Paragraph 5 of the NATO-treaty (the musketeer-oath) is for defense - not attack. It states that an attack on one member is an attack on all - and it was activated after sept.11. after USA was attacked. In this case however Turkey isn't being attacked (or threatened - Paragraph 4) - rather the opposite. Not only does Turkey have (IIRC) 12.000 men inside Iraq at the moment - they also want to aid USA in it's upcomming war with Iraq. The NATO-treaty does not cover here."

To futher explain - if USA attack Iraq using Turkish bases - and Iraq counter-attacks, this is not a situation where paragraph 5 can be used as Turkey is the aggressor.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: Not entirely correct. We (Belgium) offered up a compromise deal with wich the French agreed beforehand. It's a give and take situation. We gave up on a few points and the other partys did aswell. So we didn't drop our objections to the first proposal. We came up with our own. Call it creative partnership.

I knew there was a compromise so "dropping" objections probably wasn't the best way to word it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Did the French agree publically or just with the Belgians? My understanding is this was done through the Defense Planning Section of NATO of which France is not a part. I thought France still opposed it?

[Sir Taliesin]

[quote]Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

I knew there was a compromise so "dropping" objections probably wasn't the best way to word it. [img]smile.gif[/img] Did the French agree publically or just with the Belgians? My understanding is this was done through the Defense Planning Section of NATO of which France is not a part. I thought France still opposed it?

My guess is the French stiil opposed it. That's why it was decided in the Defense Planning Section where France wasn't a member and couldn't veto the idea.