Share this story!            

Most serious NATO rift since Pershing protests

By Anton La Guardia

LONDON: The row within NATO over how to deal with Iraq is the most serious transatlantic rift since the arguments over the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe in the Eighties.

The issue at stake whether NATO should consider helping Turkey in the event of a war with Iraq may seem relatively minor, but the consequences go to the heart of the alliance.

An infuriated Donald Rumsfeld, the United States defence secretary, bluntly told the objectors that their attitude was “inexcusable”. He said: “What will be hurt is NATO, not Turkey.” This is a clear warning that the European anti-war camp risks turning not only NATO, but also the United Nations, into an irrelevance.

The deepening dispute places Britain in a difficult position. Tony Blair is in favour of taking military action to disarm Iraq, but wants UN support to pacify domestic opinion.

British diplomats expected some “posturing” by European countries, assuming that they would eventually line up. But with war just weeks away, British diplomats are alarmed by the readiness of Berlin and Paris to escalate the confrontation with Washington.France and Germany are leading the way trying to stop the UN Security Council from approving military action against Iraq, demanding instead that inspectors be strengthened and be given more time to work.

At the same time, France, Germany and Belgium have stopped NATO from even considering plans to help Turkey in case of war in Iraq, on the grounds that the matter must first be decided by the UN.

After three weeks of deadlock, George Robertson, the NATO secretary general, placed the question on a “silence procedure”. This would have allowed NATO to study ways of assisting Turkey - including the provision of Patriot missiles, Awacs surveillance aircraft and chemical protection suits - if countries do not formally object by this morning.

However, Louis Michel, the Belgian foreign minister, said the three “objectors” in NATO would block the move. In some of the harshest anti-American comments heard from European leaders, Mr Michel told Belgium’s VRT television he did not accept America’s motives for going to war.

“They did not succeed in catching bin Laden and now they have to find an enemy they can beat,” he said, “I think it has to do with power, probably also very likely with oil and the humiliation they suffered.”

Turkey may now have to resort to the unprecedented move of invoking Article Four of the NATO treaty, which calls on allies to “consult together” whenever one of them feels threatened. One NATO official said: “This row is at the same time a piffling issue and a very serious one. Everybody is agreed that they will help Turkey when the time comes. The question is one of timing. “But if NATO can’t even provide help to an ally - to defend it and not for offensive action - it raises serious questions about the state of the alliance.”

British officials say they are baffled by hardening opposition from Germany and France. In contrast with previous NATO rows over alliance military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, there is no question of asking Berlin to send troops to intervene beyond its borders.

Unlike the demonstrations against the stationing of US nuclear missiles in Europe during the Cold War, it is unlikely that anyone would protest against sending help to Turkey.

Germany was once one of the anchors of NATO, but now it has entered an alliance of convenience with France, traditionally the most awkward ally. But in the world of power politics, Germany and France are likely to lose the high stakes game of diplomatic poker with America.

One British official watching the curt exchanges between Mr Rumsfeld and Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, at this weekend’s security conference in Munich said the two countries had passed the point of no return.

He added that he did not think that America would forgive the Germans “for a long, long time”. —LDT

Home | Foreign

Share this story!