h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Tensions within NATO are rising, with some members being accused of not pulling their weight in Afghanistan. Canada has announced that they are withdrawing their troops as a direct result of mainly France & Germany refusing to contribute in a meaningful way.

Has the time for NATO passed?

*Canada has announced that they are withdrawing their troops*

Sort of...... Our minority government is *led* by the Conservatives who have to tread lightly to maintain their slim control. As a result they have had to acquiesce to the Liberals and the Bloc Quebeqois and name a date for withdrawal. This too could change in a flash if the Tories won the next election.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/06/Afghanistan/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

Yes.

Think the second post has it right on the real Canadian reasons.

And of course the principal reason why there aren't enough troops in Afghanistan was tackling Iraq without finishing Afghanistan first.

France have a lot of troops out and about - don't think you could accuse them of shirking their international responsibilities.

I think Nato still has its purposes, but is now only one of several options.

sprout

Not at all. Since you only tend see reports of troops on the ground on the news due to Iraq and Afghanistan, people tend to think that's the sum total of military operations. The public tends to forget about strategic defence. As long as we have planes, ships and submarines capable of tackling a a large and technically advanced enemy, there will be a need for interoperability with allies, and that's where NATO comes in.

No, it's time for the rest of the world to tell America to sort their own 'sh1t' out and not bleat at everyone for not pulling their wieght.

The US of A invaded the country they should sort it out. (OK, 'we' did help out but know we have Comrade Brown in charge who doesn't seem to have offered his big brown eye for Bush to...well you know what...'we' may be able to side-step the issue and tell the Yanks 'Your sandpit. You sh@t in it. You sort the cr@p out.'

Well, I enjoyed that little rant.

Playing Devil's Advocate, NATO's charter says an attack on one is an attack on all. Over 3000 people died in 10 minutes when Al Quaeda attacked the US. The Taleban in Afghanistan sheltered Al Quaeda. That justified the invasion. The Taleban and Al Quaeda are currently fighting a guerilla war whose object (I assume) is to re-take control of the country.

NATO has a choice - fight to prevent the re-emergence of a regime that attacks the West (as well as Africa and Asia) or pull out. If pulling out leads to an Al Quaeda attack on Berlin in a few years, why should America honour it's NATO commitments and support retaliation?

Right Dot, b/c clearly Europe was pulling it's own weight throughout the entire history of NATO, and never got any help from the US.

NATO membership should be reduced to those countries that actually border the North Atlantic.

NATO was a response to a possible Russian invasion of Europe by Russia. It was successful but now it's job is done. The US of A now uses it as a Trojan horse to gain influence in Europe as Shrub's agression has ostracised many.

It's about time we grew up and recognised that foreign and trade policies are now conducted at regional and not national level. We should be contributing to a European defence force. Our UK interests are best served in Europe and not with some defunct special relationship across the Atlantic.

There's only a handful of NATO countries who don't border the North Atlantic: the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. While I'm sure NATO could survive without them, I'm not sure why it'd boot them out.

I liked SWL's analysis - NATO is actually doing what it was designed to do for the first time in Afghanistan. It's just a terrible shame that certain countries aren't abiding by their obligations.

"NATO is actually doing what it was designed to do for the first time in Afghanistan."

I don't think it's strictly true to say that. It was designed, as far as I'm aware, to deal with situations with wars between states - for instance, where the USSR invaded a smaller non-Eastern Bloc country in Europe. It wasn't designed to deal with terrorist groups or the countries which harbour them. If it was consistently put to this use it would be a recipe for disaster.

Whereas I would have said only Cananda Britain, Iceland and Sweden border the North Atlantic.

Which doesn't make the comment any more transparent. There are too many countries in the NATO Alliance - the chance of unity of purpose being met in all but the most extreme circumstances are slight.

"We should be contributing to a European defence force. Our UK interests are best served in Europe and not with some defunct special relationship across the Atlantic."

I can't agree with this analysis ~ Whilst geographically we are closer to the European mainland, in temprement and outlook we are much closer to North America.

Europe is a mess of conflicting attitudes and approaches - the more we distance ourselves from the federal ambitions of France and Germany the better off we will be.

You think most of the UK population was closer to the US attitude on invading Iraq than the attitude in France or Germany?

Not convinced. I would also argue that UK positions on the Middle East are closer to France/Germany than the US.

sprout

The most realistic stance for UK going forwards has to be at the centre of Europe. Do you honestly think Russia, China, USA or India give a toss for a medium sized ex colonial power like UK. The only mitigating view would be our Commonwealth but I'm not sure how much clout that has internationally.

The Commonwealth is a mirage. No-one believes it has any political relevance, apart from a few retired colonels.

Look at the astounding success story that Commonwealth pressure on Zimbabwe has been, for example.

sprout

At least the Commonwealth was prepared to say something about a non-oil pr0ducing company.

The Middle East is indeed the one big area where we diverge from America - however that doesn't mean we align with the petty attitudes of France and Germany.

Countries are breaking down into smaller units, Scotland, Wales, Slovenia, Macedonia, and the super-state envisaged for Europe is a non-starter.

We don't have the homogenised culture of America and we don't have the enforced political outlook of China or Russia.

"The most realistic stance for UK going forwards has to be at the centre of Europe. Do you honestly think Russia, China, USA or India give a toss for a medium sized ex colonial power like UK. The only mitigating view would be our Commonwealth but I'm not sure how much clout that has internationally."

You're pushing the old myth of Britain being some faded powerless relic. We still have one of the world's top-five economies and strongest and most high-tec militaries. We're far more capable of projecting military force that India or China (China has far more troops and spends much more on her military but her capabilities for projecting it are actually quite limited, hence why China rarely gets involved internationally).

"The Commonwealth is a mirage. No-one believes it has any political relevance, apart from a few retired colonels.

Look at the astounding success story that Commonwealth pressure on Zimbabwe has been, for example."

I wouldn't say the Commonwealth has *no* political relevance but it certainly has little since it's nothing more than a sort of Gentleman's Club of nations.