Stardate 20011005.1343 (On Screen): Except for Great Britain, it seems that the United States
hasn't really asked NATO members for a great deal: intelligence data, law enforcement cooperation, use of air space and military bases, and to replace our units currently engaged in NATO operations so that they can be deployed elsewhere. Aside from that, the US's response to the invocation of Article 5 seems to be
Thanks, we'll call you if we need you. Which makes this press conference with Germany's Chancellor Schroeder and France's Prime Minister Jospin particularly curious. Two quotes stand out:
"You have a situation which is favorable to terrorism if you do not deal with these problems, such as the Middle East and inequalities of development," said Jospin, whose theme was sustainable economic development.
"Terror does not have poverty as its root cause," said Schroeder. "But the idea of sustainability has got to include the people of the Third World, otherwise these people become radicalized."
Now if I read that correctly, it says that Schroeder acknowledges that poverty isn't directly responsible for the recent attack, but it actually is anyway (he contradicts himself), and he'd like to use it to push his agenda for debt relief for the Third World. This is the latest in a pretty long series, now, of people trying to use these events in a dishonorable way to push what are fundamentally honorable goals. (I happen to agree with the goal of Third World debt relief, but I don't think it is related in any important way to the WTC attack.) More curious is this statement:
The two leaders reiterated support for American action following the September 11 attacks on targets in New York and Washington, dismissing suggestions that Washington was not adequately communicating its plans to its allies.
"We are adequately informed for the decisions that we have to take," noted Jospin.
But in fact they're not being asked to make any serious decisions; the US hasn't asked them for any deployment of their own troops. ("Yes, you can use our airspace" is not a particularly challenging decision, one would think.) Which means that this isn't an answer. It could be interpreted as "We're not involved and we're not being told anything." They probably are being told some things, but perhaps not as much as they might like -- no sign of "We're fully informed" or any such statement. (Like as not, they're not being told when or what we intend to attack.) This looks like a major case of duck-and-cover to me; I wonder if there may be some political rumblings in both France and Germany asking "What are we doing to help our friends the Americans? They're sending their men off to war; are we?" Well, no, "we" aren't because they haven't asked us. "The British are involved, aren't they?" Um, yes. "Well then, why aren't we?" A damned good question, that -- and it may actually turn out to be a political problem for Jospin. The reason is national pride: France still likes to think of itself as a being a major world power. To be snubbed and left warming the bench during the game may bruise the French ego. And there's no answer to the question "Why aren't we?" which would not doing some further bruising. (discuss)
