Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Hails New Friends and Omits Some Old Ones
New York Times ^ | 5/09/03 | DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO

Posted on 05/09/2003 1:44:00 AM PDT by kattracks


WASHINGTON, May 8 — On a day when the Senate unanimously approved adding seven former Communist-bloc nations to NATO, President Bush accelerated the White House effort today to reward his allies in the Iraq war and by omission to show his displeasure with those who opposed him.

Mr. Bush invited the foreign ministers of the seven nations for a private chat in the Roosevelt Room of the White House and then ushered them into the East Room, noting that it was the 58th anniversary of the day President Truman announced victory in Europe. But the allies that emerged from that victory, including France and Germany, are now referred to in the White House as "Old Europe," while the countries he celebrated today are considered part of a new, more willing set of European allies.

Advertisement

"In the battle of Iraq, Central and Eastern European countries have stood with America and our coalition to end a grave threat to peace, and to rid Iraq of a brutal, brutal regime," he told them, with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell standing behind him.

"The peoples of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have a fresh memory of tyranny. And they know the consequences of complacency in the face of danger."

Administration officials said Mr. Bush would also offer rewards to the Arab world on Friday, when he is to propose a United States-Middle East free trade area during a commencement speech at the University of South Carolina. The White House would not say tonight what countries were to be eligible for inclusion in the trade deal, but a senior official said Iraq would be among them.

"We fully expect Iraq to be able to compete and to have free trade agreements with the U.S. and others," the official said. The United States already has free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan. A senior official said the president would set a goal of 2013 to create the free trade area.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney invited the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, into the Oval Office to thank him for allowing Central Command to run the war from a command center in his emirate. "You made some promises to America, and you kept your promises," Mr. Bush told him, the highest praise from a president who has made clear the importance of loyalty.

It was clear that Turkey's leaders, who were chastised by American officials this week for refusing to allow the United States to open a northern front from their territory, would not be sitting around the Oval Office fireplace in coming weeks.

The Senate's action today endorsed Mr. Bush's vision for stronger ties between the United States and the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.

The expansion, which needs the approval of all 19 of NATO's current members, would add the seven nations to the alliance. The United States became the third NATO member, along with Canada and Norway, to ratify the plan. But beneath today's 96-0 vote, there was an undercurrent of concern about the future of NATO, stemming from the bitter dispute between the United States and some of its oldest trans-Atlantic allies, including France, Germany and Belgium, regarding the war in Iraq.

In February, France, Germany and Belgium blocked an American-backed request to help Turkey strengthen its defenses in preparation for a war with Iraq. The three countries said endorsing such assistance would increase the likelihood of an invasion they opposed.

Without invoking those countries' names — but clearly motivated by lingering dismay with them — a bipartisan group of senators added nonbinding language to the expansion resolution calling for a review of NATO's "consensus rule" that requires unanimous agreement for all decisions.

"The recent divisive debate over planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of war with Iraq demonstrated that achieving consensus in NATO has become more difficult," said Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who co-sponsored the provision. "How difficult will it be with 26 nations?"

But Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, argued that abandoning consensus rule for majority rule would "send members scurrying for votes in support of their decisions, merely delaying action and reinforcing divisions among allies."

Today's vote came at a time when the Bush administration is pushing NATO to redefine its mission, once focused solely on containing the Soviet Union, toward aggressively fighting terrorism not just in Europe, but also the Middle East and Central Asia.

Along those lines, NATO has agreed to take responsibility for peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, and some American officials want the alliance to play a similar role in Iraq.

Today's unanimous vote contrasted with the last round of NATO expansion five years ago, when 19 senators opposed adding the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to the alliance.

But all three of those countries provided significant support to the United States campaign against Saddam Hussein. Among the seven new applicants to NATO, only Slovenia was not among the countries that provided some help to the United States and Britain in Iraq, officials said.

The Senate brushed aside the two major concerns about NATO expansion: that the new members would provide little in the way of military hardware or personnel to the alliance, and that the addition of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would threaten Russia.

"Russia has nothing to fear from NATO and nothing to fear from Baltic membership in NATO," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois. "The tiny Baltic states are no military challenge to Russia, and certainly a democratic Russia does not threaten Europe."



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/09/2003 1:44:00 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What does NATO have to offer these countries other than supporting a group of faceless bureaucrats? I fail to see where a group of countries organized to defend against the Soviet Union that died years ago, has any legitimate purpose.
2 posted on 05/09/2003 2:09:09 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
The ONLY use I see is that NATO may become the forum for a military alternative to the United Nations, effectively nuetering the latter in favor of a functional coalition. Remember that France is not a member of the Military council of NATO.

For that reason, I can see continuing NATO. It's basically a knife we can continue to turn in the gaping open-wound of the UN's non-existant credibility.

That's about it, though.

3 posted on 05/09/2003 2:41:34 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meenie
What does NATO have to offer anyone? We should just make our own military agreements with individual nations rather than the pack mentality. That way, France and Germany would have to contend with us one-on-one.
4 posted on 05/09/2003 3:37:31 AM PDT by 11B3 (Happiness IS a warm gun. After a long day's use.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson