Last Thursday Poland was to host a conference of NATO countries prepared to contribute to a peacekeeping force in Iraq. Even a short time ago, the prospect would have seemed bizarre. A new member of NATO organizing a multinational military presence in a country whose invasion provoked unprecedented divisions within the alliance would have been regarded as cloud-cuckoo-land.
Before the Iraq war, NATO appeared fatally wounded if not dead and buried. The experience of the Kosovo war convinced many US military commanders that the alliance was not only too unwieldy but could not be trusted to fight a war either militarily or politically. The US accounted for more than 80 per cent of the firepower and was deeply frustrated by what Washington -- and London -- called "war by committee". They resented French objections to the choice of targets.
Then came Sept. 11. Few of NATO's founding fathers would have imagined that its dominant member, as opposed to the European allies, would be attacked by a Soviet missile -- none that it would be attacked by an international terrorist group. Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary-general, immediately summoned a meeting to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty whereby an attack on one ally "shall be considered an attack against them all."
NATO thus agreed that article 5 would now cover terrorist attacks on a member state. It also agreed to a package of measures to help the US, including sending early warning aircraft to North America.
But these were purely symbolic acts. The Bush administration, and in particular the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, did not want any NATO role where it mattered most -- military action, the bombing of Afghanistan. "Afghanistan was seen in Europe as anti-NATO", says Charles Grant, director of the thinktank, The Centre for European Reform, referring to the US air strikes.
The Pentagon drove home the point. "The mission determines the coalition. The coalition does not determine the mission". It is difficult to overestimate the negative impact the doctrine had on the French government. After accusing France for years of destabilizing NATO, here was the US saying in future it will ignore the alliance and cherry-pick the friends it wants -- "coalitions of the willing".
The fault lines in NATO were deepened by Franco-German opposition to a war against Iraq leading to both refusing to agree to a NATO decision to send early-warning aircraft and Patriot anti-missile batteries to protect Turkey from an attack by Iraqi forces. The weapons were eventually sent, after a decision by NATO's defense policy committee, of which France is not a member. Germany by then had dropped its objection. Even with this, Turkey, considered by the US as a vital NATO ally, refused to be bribed to allow US troops to cross its territory to invade Iraq.
The crisis in NATO was compounded by the decision by Bush, Blair, Aznar and eager members of what Rumsfeld called the "new Europe" -- prospective EU and NATO members in the east -- to sign an open letter supporting a war. President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder responded with their own letter. Washington, meanwhile, says it is planning to move some of its 80,000 troops in Germany further east, to bases in Romania and Bulgaria. France wants the EU to take a more independent line on defense and security policy, with its own military headquarters separate from NATO. The EU is in charge of a small peacekeeping force in Macedonia and plans to take over from NATO peacekeeping operations in Bosnia next year. But these are soft missions. Most political and military analysts dismiss French ambitions as pie in the sky.
A Franco-German summit in Brussels last month to pursue the idea was attended only by Belgium and Luxembourg. The Europeans are having difficulty in setting up their long-planned rapid reaction force of 40,000 troops able to be deployed in 40 days. EU countries are failing to reach targets for acquiring modern military equipment, with a serious shortfall in crucial areas.
While the US Congress is about to agree to a large increase in its annual military budget to US$400 billion most of the major European allies are doing little more than treading water.
Grant compares NATO to a "yellow plastic duck bobbing up and down on the pond". When it gets stormy the duck gets tossed around. But, he says, "the duck never actually sinks."
There are signs that the US and France want to calm things down. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, worried about Rumsfeld's provocative approach, came up with the idea of a NATO rapid response force, more palatable to the US chiefs of staff than any European initiative but signalling that America is prepared to go down the multilateral role. France says it will consider joining a NATO-backed security force for Iraq provided it has the blessing of the UN.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US