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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with