The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I don't follow that at all. With the collapse of the USSR, NATO lost its legitimate reason for being. Whereas before it served the function of protecting Western Europe from (unlikely) Soviet aggression, after the collapse, its sole purpose became keeping the US in Europe, and making it impossible for Europe to develop a foreign or military policy independently of the US.
It is specious to say that NATO is a multilateral organization. It is a vehicle for the projection of US power.
There are no valid reasons for European countries to be involved militarily in Afghanistan. Humanitarian goals cannot be achieved by military means. The NATO presence in Afghanistan is a US imperial, not a multilateral humanitarian, project.
And it is hard to see why the US itself should want to stay in Afghanistan, in geopolitical terms. There seem to be three reasons for the continuing presence and escalation, none of them having to do with Afghanistan itself:
"Multilateralism is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working in concert on a given issue."
It is a vehicle for the projection of US power. It's a vehicöe for the projection of the interests of the members. Like the EU.
There are no valid reasons for European countries to be involved militarily in Afghanistan. There sure are. For one, the Americans asked us kindly. And as they're our friends, we've chosen to help them. Not only NATO members have taken that position.
Humanitarian goals cannot be achieved by military means. Humanitarian work is impossible in an insecure environment.
And it is hard to see why the US itself should want to stay in Afghanistan, in geopolitical terms. Leaving Afghanistan and letting it collapse under its own weight will mean the Taliban will get back into power and the terrs will yet again have a safe haven. There's also the question what effect that will have on Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I don't see why you bother posting such comments here. We have enough of that from the NY Times and The Economist.
You might find the following illuminating:
Our differing approaches to terror
Some years ago, the contrarian Belfast journalist John O'Farrell (not a Protestant unionist) was writing about the career of Martin McGuinness, which had taken him from head of the IRA to minister of education. As O'Farrell said, thanks to the Belfast agreement and settlement, "the children of Northern Ireland will have their futures in the hands of a man who, if he were a Serb, would be indicted at The Hague". Or try another comparison, the respective fate of two terrorist leaders. One is a white Catholic Irishman, the other a dark-skinned Muslim Palestinian; one is asked to present a programme on Jesus, the other is brutally bumped off - an assassination which, like all such by Mossad, will never be publicly condemned by the US. Suppose that, at the height of the IRA violence, Adams and McGuinness had been the objects of "targeted killing" by MI6. It's interesting to speculate what the American reaction would have been. [...] Compare and contrast, as exam papers say. The IRA and its front organisation Sinn Fein want to undo the partition of Ireland that was effected by the creation of a separate province of Northern Ireland in 1920. To that end the IRA deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Protestants, and that end, if not the means, "is shared by many of our citizens", Blair says, as well as by millions of Irish Americans. Hamas wants to undo the partition of Palestine that was effected by the creation of a separate state of Israel in 1948. To that end it has deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Jews. And that end, if not the means, is shared by hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims as well as others in Asia and Africa. Why does their support not equally validate the objective?
Or try another comparison, the respective fate of two terrorist leaders. One is a white Catholic Irishman, the other a dark-skinned Muslim Palestinian; one is asked to present a programme on Jesus, the other is brutally bumped off - an assassination which, like all such by Mossad, will never be publicly condemned by the US. Suppose that, at the height of the IRA violence, Adams and McGuinness had been the objects of "targeted killing" by MI6. It's interesting to speculate what the American reaction would have been. [...]
Compare and contrast, as exam papers say. The IRA and its front organisation Sinn Fein want to undo the partition of Ireland that was effected by the creation of a separate province of Northern Ireland in 1920. To that end the IRA deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Protestants, and that end, if not the means, "is shared by many of our citizens", Blair says, as well as by millions of Irish Americans.
Hamas wants to undo the partition of Palestine that was effected by the creation of a separate state of Israel in 1948. To that end it has deliberately murdered many people, including ordinary Jews. And that end, if not the means, is shared by hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims as well as others in Asia and Africa. Why does their support not equally validate the objective?
And, you know, the IRA was always seen as a terrorist group, at least officially, like Hamas, though it is true that the IRA was not a creation of the UK (while Hamas was certainly a creation of Israel, to undermine Fatah...talk about blow-back) so I fail to see the point of this "contrarian," on a number of levels.' The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Afghanistan is not a particularly well located place from which to launch terror attacks, unless of course, through incompetence, no one is paying attention to what they are doing.
It's a vehicule for the projection of the interests of the members. Like the EU.
I think you confuse the actual interests of the EU member states which are part of Nato, and the actual interests of the elites which rule in most of those member states. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
Leaving Afghanistan and letting it collapse under its own weight will mean the Taliban will get back into power and the terrs will yet again have a safe haven.
I thought the stated US goal at this time was to get the Talibans back into power, within a negotiated framework:
FT.com / Asia-Pacific / Afghanistan - McChrystal sees Taliban role
General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander in Afghanistan, has raised the prospect that his troop surge will lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban.
If so, then the 2001 Talibans were good Talibans.
Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden - Asia, World - The Independent
Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. "When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations," Mr Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt."
Mr Kabir said: "If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate." Mr bin Laden could be handed over to a third country for trial, he said. "We could discuss which third country."
But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. "When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations," Mr Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over. There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt."
Last month the Taliban's foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, indicated that the Taliban might be prepared to hand Mr Bin Laden over to another Muslim country where the evidence against him could be weighed by a panel of Islamic scholars. This proposal, rejected by the US, has now been shelved.
Starvid:
Good Talibans are Talibans that won't harbour terrs.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence." 'Sapere aude'
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Someone who blows up women and children without proper authorisation from the Imperial Government. Also someone who's so rude as not to use proper high-tech delivery systems to dismember babies.
Terror mean[s] killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.
It just occurred to me that the "and go beyond national borders" clause is interesting. That makes Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building during Clinton's presidency and abortion clinic bombers not terrorists, since they operate within national borders. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
American right-wing extremists in contrast, being America firsters, typically do not go beyond the American national border.
Of course, the US engages in "killing and robbery and coercion" and goes "beyond national borders" (that's why it's considered to be an empire), but since it has "state authority", it is not a terrorist organization.
Nobody ever said that Clinton's not a clever fellow.
Also, Basque terrorists, for example, do not operate beyond (currently existing) national borders. Thus, they do not challenge the US's role as the hegemon which controls relations between states, and hence are not terrorists.
So Clinton's definition comes very close to saying that a terrorist is anyone who uses violence to challenge American power. A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
Really? I don't think there have been any attacks in France, but are you sure none of them come from the French side?
And then there's the Stern Gang's attempted bombing of Whitehall (the timer failed). That would make a Zionist group into terrorists. Does Clinton really mean to say that? Maybe he needs a better definition.
MI5 and British passports
Expression America Firster stolen? I liked the native First Nations at the Vancouver Olympics a lot better.
THE Afghan Taliban's military leader has been arrested in a crushing blow to morale and logistical support for insurgents fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan.
"Given the fact that (Baradar) is very close to Mullah Omar and one of the key Taliban leaders, this could be an attempt to, on the one hand, use him as a negotiator but on the other hand disrupt the leadership and force the Taliban to come to the negotiating table," International Crisis Group chief Pakistan analyst Samina Ahmed said.
The Dutch don't work with Jan Mohammed in Uruzgan province
● A GoA Reconciliation Policy in the Making ● Abdul Ghani Baradar and Hamid Karzai both from Popalzai tribe ● Expedition Uruzgan: the Road of Hamid Karzai to the Palace by Bette Dam
Otherwise you are completely right though I suspect Oui means "multilateral" in the sense that as regards "international law" it is seen as such, including by major opinion segments in the Netherlands. The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
The relevant point is that NATO is a military organization consisting of a set of member states. Multilateralism in substance as opposed to form implies cooperation among equals. Since the military budget of the US dwarfs those of the other NATO members combined, it is not the case that the US in NATO is just first among equals. It basically calls the shots, and that is not multilateralism. The name for it is hegemony. (To get back to your point, hegemony does imply that the hegemon acts in the interests of the elites of the countries which it dominates.) A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 6 comments
by Oui - Oct 26 9 comments
by gmoke - Oct 26
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 26 comments
by Oui - Oct 3111 comments
by Oui - Oct 269 comments
by Oui - Oct 267 comments
by Oui - Oct 2537 comments
by Oui - Oct 253 comments
by Oui - Oct 249 comments
by Oui - Oct 244 comments
by Oui - Oct 20
by Oui - Oct 195 comments
by Oui - Oct 193 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1810 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 184 comments
by Oui - Oct 18
by Oui - Oct 174 comments
by Oui - Oct 17
by Oui - Oct 163 comments
by Oui - Oct 161 comment