Display:
Both the UN and the EU are effectively immobilized from taking action in a controversial situation by the requirement of unanimous agreement.
Okay, how about NATO?
The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.
Oh, so that's why the US says it acts "with NATO allies", as opposed to "with NATO". Because except for Kosovo you can't get a consensus to act unless there is UN authorisation. It's all about "coalitions of the willing".

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 05:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your observation is correct. The US is not able to formally impose its will on NATO in all circumstances. However, since it excludes Russia and China there is less dissent to contend with. That is what happened with Kosovo. I think there is a definite possibility of getting NATO consent for an intervention in Sudan in the event of a Chinese veto in the UNSC.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Tue Aug 8th, 2006 at 10:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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