When is the multipolar world bad policy? Why, when France is not one of the big poles.

US, FRANCE IN FIERCE DEBATE ON ROLE OF NATO

BRUSSELS November 1, 2006 (AFP) - A fierce debate is raging in the heart of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation], with the United States and France in opposing corners, ahead of a summit in Riga, Latvia this month.

The disagreement centres on the future role of the North Atlantic military alliance, especially over transforming it into a global force.

... The French view was encapsulated in a bylined opinion piece by [Michèle Alliot-Marie, Ministre de la Défense,*] published in the French daily Le Figaro.

This is a hand-me-down to Figaro. The same op-ed appeared ten days earlier in the Washington Times.

"Nowadays some people talk of the possibilities to extend NATO missions in two directions," she wrote, "one is geographic, developing new partnerships with countries, the other functional, operating in the civilian domain, notably in the reconstruction of countries emerging from crisis".

For Alliot-Marie, whose article was entitled "NATO should remain a Euro-Atlantic organisation," [DON'T DIMINISH NATO'S EFFECTIVENESS in the Washington Times] the contribution of countries such as Australia and Japan in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) under NATO command in Afghanistan should be recognised. But that "should not change the fundamental nature of NATO which should be... a Euro-Atlantic military alliance".

The development of global partners for NATO will "dilute the natural solidarity between Europeans and North Americans," and give the impression of "a campaign ... of the West against those who don't share its views".

Her views contrast sharply with those held in Washington which wishes to hand NATO reconstruction missions in Afghanistan. This tactic, the French minister said, meant replacing "organisations which are competent to carry them out, in particular the UN and the European Union".

"To transform NATO into an organisation whose mission is to reconstruct economies and democracies all at once does not correspond to its legitimacy or its means," she added.

... [US ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland,] in her comments just hours after the publication of the Figaro article, opined that between now and the November 28-29 summit in Riga "allies are going to spend a lot of time on wrestling and mud wrestling about the words that we use in our NATO documents and communiques".

"I would argue that the reality of what's going on in NATO is outstripping our ability to encapsulate in the NATO doctrine and theory here in NATO headquarters," she continued, during a conference at the Centre for European Policy Studies.

The situation on the ground is "outstripping theory most importantly where it counts, in Afghanistan", said Nuland, describing the situation there as NATO's most challenging and most important undertaking.

This year ISAF forces have been involved in fierce fighting with Taliban militiamen in Afghanistan, particularly in the south of the country. NATO has called on its allies to provide reinforcements, to relieve British, Canadian and Dutch troops, but without much success due to operations elsewhere.

There are compelling arguments to be made for NATO remaining within the original compass of its charter. The most compelling being that large multinational organizations with competing national interests never agree on much and never work well. Mdm. le Ministre does not make this excellent argument. Instead she makes one of those nuanced French arguments where the nuance is loaded with blatant French advantages. What Mdm. le Ministre argues for is a French-sized NATO, where France looms large and is not lost amongst the not-France -- and most especially a NATO that does not oblige France to support American policy beyond Europa.

EU AND NATO BOUND IN A PERILOUS RIVALRY

POTSDAM October 4, 2006 (IHT) - "NATO and the EU could do so much more to help each other," said Daniel Keohane, a defense analyst at the Center for European Reform in London. "At a time when both are being called upon by the United Nations to provide troops, whether to Lebanon or Afghanistan, they should be talking to each other. Frankly, the dialogue in Brussels is truly dreadful."

... The countries at the center of this competition, analysts say, are Britain, which wants to preserve and strengthen NATO, and France, which wants the EU to grow into a more robust defense institution, independent of NATO.

"The competition is there," said Peter Schwarz of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. "There is always the tendency by France to try to separate the EU's defense policy from NATO."

Indeed, when Germany agreed to command the EU's latest military mission to Democratic Republic of the Congo, which started in July, Chancellor Angela Merkel wanted to cooperate with NATO by using its planning headquarters, SHAPE, based in Mons, Belgium. But President Jacques Chirac of France and his Foreign Ministry insisted that the EU command the mission - alone, and from Potsdam, just south of Berlin, where the EU's newest military operations headquarters is based.

... Tension has increased since 2003, when NATO started its first "out of area" mission, in Afghanistan. France and Belgium, founding members of the EU, have made it clear that they do not want NATO to be used by the United States to advance Washington's foreign policy agenda. France in particular is seeking a stronger EU defense policy that is less dependent on Washington.

Britain, too, favors a strong EU defense, but insists this should be tied to NATO, not in competition with it.

NATO is a good deal for France. She is neither in nor out. She quit NATO's integrated military structure in 1966 because she was not accorded a position of privilege. She then unceremoniously kicked the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) out of France, giving it less than a year to relocate.** Yet here she is still -- a tiresome kibitzer, an obstructionist bore, an implacable complainer and schemer, the caniche in the crèche.

France makes much of her nuclear arsenal, but in truth her arsenal of 350-some-odd warheads, like France herself, lacks the threat to deter Russia, her only conceiveable nuclear adversary,*** with some 16,000 warheads. In or out, France lives snug and secure under a NATO nuclear umbrella, which is the American nuclear umbrella.

* Former dimmest bulb in the dark Chirac marquee™. The title is currently held by the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy.

*** Until Iran develops its bomb courtesy of France fending off meaningful sanctions.

PFFT (What is this?): Keeping NATO French-sized 3 | Rayonnement français 0

What a mud this Irak..
Chirac told you so, and you didn't listen at that time, what a pity...

In France we are sad we didn't convince our friend , the US , to don't make this mistake.

Alas, our friends have elected a asshole as president.

Hey marc "Douche Bag" levis: Where was Iraq mentioned in this debate? It's about Afghanistan and the fact that the US can no longer trust the UN and EU so they're looking to NATO for help.

The US is not France's friend and France is not the US's friend. With friends like France, who needs enemies? I used to travel to Europe once a year, but I haven't stepped foot on the continent since 9/11.

Good luck with the riot season and double digit unemployment. Maybe your country will finally implode from within and rethink their anti-American stance. I sure miss the Riviera!

[Mr. Blow, who has nothing to say on topic, has cut-and-pasted the identical nothing in two different threads. We imagine Mr. Blow's prattle takes whole afternoons of re-writes and he is only looking to capitalize his modest assets with repetition. But nothing once is enough and this entry has been deleted.

The Management]

If you want more info about NATO summint in Latvia, visit my site - www.i-latvia.eu - i've got some useful info and facts if you're coming to Riga in November. Big event, yeah!