Display:
My argument is that NATO action without UN authorisation doesn't have legitimacy or authority with the public in NATO members other than the US. Maybe it does with the governments of the UK and "new Europe" to use Rumsfeld's quip.

Kosovo is the only precedent for NATO action without UNSC authorisation. I don't think there will be another any time soon.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 06:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have run across some British people on the net who see NATO as the necessary vehicle to bring order to an increasingly chaotic world. I don't have any polls to demonstrate have pervasive this attitude is in the UK, but I think it represents more than just a few people. It was the British who first pushed the US to establish NATO. The dream of empire has not entirely died. These people tend to think that the Kosovo intervention was something to celebrate. I expect you could find similar opinions in France and Germany, certainly not a majority by a long shot, but likely people with a good bit of influence.

I think the chances of a NATO action in defiance of the UNSC are very real. Sudan is a good possibility for it.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 06:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sometimes I think the UK belongs to "Anglo-Saxonia", not Europe. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The largest public demonstrations ever in Europe [Madrid, London, Rome in February/March 2003] have happened to oppose governments aligning themselves with US policy. Gerhard Shroeder snatched electoral victory from the jaws of defeat simply by opposing Bush on Iraq.

I don#t see a reason, if puch comes to shove, for Russia or China to veto an intervention in Sudan, so NATO won't intervene there without a UNSC resolution unless the US chooses not to seek a resolution (like in Afghanistan, by the way) and in that case NATO won't follow (though some NATO members may, like the UK or the Czech Republic). Remember the US chose not to use NATO for the Afghanistan campaign precisely because [Chomsky alert!] according to the NATO treaty it was legitimate for NATO to intervene if Afghanistan was identified as the culprit for 9/11. The US has no more interest in lending legitimcay to the NATO charter than to the UN charter, because if the NATO charter acquires legitimacy it becomes another straitjacket for US action.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 06:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with you for a moment that the UK has always held itself aloof from Europe. I don't think we have anything to disagree about on that point. I certainly agree that the dominant public opinion in continental Europe is in opposition to US policy. I'm simply saying that there are likely other groups with political leverage who see it differently.

China has already opposed some of the more aggressive moves regarding Sudan. They have oil interest and clients there. I think there is a very real possibility that they would veto a UNSC resolution that wasn't to their liking. They are regularly using their veto power as a lure to establish closer ties with African states. They just persuaded Chad to break ties with Taiwan.

I agree that the US would not let a commitment to the NATO charter get in its way, but it constrains their actions less than the UN charter so for the moment it's useful. It is a place where Russia and China have no voice at all.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 07:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I certainly agree that the dominant public opinion in continental Europe is in opposition to US policy. I'm simply saying that there are likely other groups with political leverage who see it differently.

Sure, like these guys.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 08:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Among others.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 08:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You will find they're all connected.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 7th, 2006 at 08:47:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good grief. Thanks for the link.


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 09:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
According to its website the EPP is "a family of the political centre whose roots are deep in the history of European civilization. It unites like-minded national parties, in EU Member States and in EU applicant countries and we maintain close contact with decided probable candidate countries."
The political centre, my ass.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 09:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"... unites ... "
".. maintain close contact ..."

Goldwater Moment for Europe?

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 10:12:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series