””””BRUSSELS,
Feb. 11 (Xinhuanet) -- NATO's future as a collective military body seems to be
in jeopardy after France, Germany and Belgium blocked on Monday an American
proposal to start planning military assistance in the event of a possible US-led
war against Iraq.
””””While ambassadors from the 19 allies are still struggling to find a way to
overcome one of the worst crises in its 54-year-old history, NATO
Secretary-General George Robertson has warned that the deadlock would bring
about enormous consequences for the alliance.
””””"The longer this dispute goes on, the worse it is going to be for the
alliance," he said.
””””The controversial proposal, which were formally put forward on Jan. 15,
includes sending surveillance planes and Patriot missile systems to Turkey,
intensifying naval patrols in the Mediterranean and an eventual role for NATO in
humanitarian or peacekeeping operations in a postwar Iraq.
””””The plan has been vetoed by France, Germany and Belgium, who argue that it
is too early to start the military planning while there is still hope of
averting a war through diplomacy and the UN weapons inspections process.
””””In a bid to step up pressure to end the standoff, Robertson invoked a
so-called "silent procedure" last Thursday, under which the American proposal
would be approved automatically unless any of the allies raises an objection by
10 am (0900 GMT) Monday.
””””To the surprise of many people, France, Germany and Belgium broke the
silence by the deadline, insisting that sending NATO military equipment to
Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq had already failed.
””””"What's at stake is whether or not we give a little more time to diplomacy
and to a process, a UN resolution, that we all agreed to at the Security
Council," said Benoit d'Aboville, French ambassador to NATO.
””””The veto has provoked a fiery response from Washington, which is
particularly keen to persuade lingering Turkey to allow the use of its territory
as a base to attack Iraq.
””””Warning against a European revolt, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had
said any veto would be "a disgrace." US ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, was
more circumspect, saying the move was "an unfortunate decision" that threatened
the credibility of the alliance.
””””The US-led Cold War institution, whose full name is the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, was founded in 1949 to confront with the Soviet Union. The
end of the Cold war more than 10 years ago, however, leaves NATO more and more
uncertain about what its future role should be.
””””NATO's military role is decreasing as the United States increasingly looks
to build a tailor-made coalition for conflicts rather than relies on NATO, where
military capabilities of other members are far less than that of the United
States. Washington could still bypass NATO in the possible war against Iraq,
just like what it did in Afghanistan, but it still needs NATO's political
support that is now devoid of in the UN Security Council. ””””
””””France and Germany, the most influential countries on the European
continent, however refused to follow the American suit this time. They see that
Washington is trying to make NATO a tool for the military buildup for war in
Iraq and they don't want to go along with it.
””””Many analysts warned that the rift among NATO members is making the
alliance on the sidelines. It is likely that the United States and other pro-war
nations will provide military help to Turkey individually. "The US and the other
alliance members would proceed with planning outside of NATO if necessary," said
Rumsfeld.
””””Just two months ago, NATO leaders at a summit in Prague, the Czech
Republic, proclaimed the Cold War alliance was reinventing itself to tackle
modern threats from terrorism and rogue states.
””””It seems that the transatlantic dispute on how to handle the Iraqi crisis
would make the reinvention more difficult than expected, analysts say. Enditem
By Xinhuanet correspondent Tian Fan
””
””