Syndicated News from NATO
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 02:17:55 GMT
Nato supply terms approved last year: FODAWN.comISLAMABAD, Dec 6: The foreign ministry informed the Senate on Friday that Nato supply lines were operating under terms agreed to by Pakistan and the US in July last year. In a written reply to a question put by Syeda Sughra Imam of the PPP, the ...
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:21:27 GMT
Sat, 07 Dec 2013 02:17:55 GMT
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:59:11 GMT
Uncertainty over security clouds NATO talks on AfghanistanCNNBrussels (CNN) -- NATO warned it may be forced to withdraw all of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of next year if President Hamid Karzai doesn't sign a security agreement with the United States. Reached last month, the pact lays out the U.S ...
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 16:51:57 GMT
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:20:12 GMT
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:33:51 GMT
PTI does not want war with Nato, US: Imran KhanDAWN.comISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan met with Nato envoys on Friday to clarify his party's position on drones and the blockade of supplies through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Accompanied by Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Shireen Mazari and ...
Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:47:49 GMT
Pakistan NATO truck blockade elicits shouts and shrugsLos Angeles TimesPESHAWAR, Pakistan ? It's been a daily routine for the last week. Dozens of young men rush toward container trucks stopped at a toll plaza outside Peshawar, demanding to see customs documents to ensure the vehicles aren't carrying supplies for NATO ...
Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:58:10 GMT
Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:46:26 GMT
: mysql_result() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /var/www/vhosts/rcnetwork.net/httpdocs/Country.php
on line 19
Results 1 - 10 of Headlines for NATO
Wednesday, November 24th, 2004
: RCN Administrator
The head of NATO will make an unprecedented visit to Algeria on Thursday, the opening move in a drive to beef up cooperation with the Arab world on counter-terrorism, defense reform and military training.
The 26-nation Western alliance has had a stilted dialogue for 10 years with seven Mediterranean and North African states — Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania — but now wants to make it a more practical relationship.
"We all realized a quantum leap was needed," said a NATO official, who requested anonymity. "The aim is to get these states closer to NATO's way of thinking."
The initiative, launched at NATO's Istanbul summit in June, has had a difficult birth because the Arab world is suspicious of Washington's ambition to bring wider reform to the region.
Plans to invite the foreign ministers of the seven nations to Istanbul were quietly dropped because of hostility over the United States' occupation of Iraq and its perceived support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.
Washington's Greater Middle East Initiative, designed to counter Islamic militancy, was criticized by many for seeking to impose reform from abroad and failing to address key regional issues, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Adopting a deliberately low-key tack, NATO is limiting the proposed relationship to practical cooperation.
This could include NATO opening its defense colleges to partners' military officers, inviting North African countries to help patrol the Mediterranean Sea and offering advice in countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The low-key approach appears to be working.
The seven foreign ministers will meet their NATO counterparts in Brussels on Dec. 8 and Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will follow up his Algiers visit with trips to the six other countries next year.
De Hoop Scheffer will meet Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and Foreign Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem in Algiers.
A parallel, but less substantive initiative of cooperative steps was drawn up at the NATO summit for other Arab countries to pick and choose from if they so wish.
A NATO official said de Hoop Scheffer's deputy had already visited Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait to discuss ties with these countries and would soon be heading to Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar.Results Page:
Wednesday, February 19th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
With hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating all over the world, against war with Iraq, it is important to remember that the countries that spawn those demonstrators, are populated by millions of people, not hundreds of thousands.
The newspapers continue to splatter images of rock-solid opposition to war everywhere, but then it is the nature of opposition, to be visible. People who support the stand against Iraq are less likely to demonstrate, because they are internally content, or internally resolved as to what has to be done. It is the same in politics. People who support a government are not likely to march to show their support. They’ll stay quietly at home, and remain silently resolute, because as the saying goes, ‘if it ‘aint broke, don’t fix it.’ However, their satisfied or resolute silence, should not be taken as indecision or similar opposition. In this case, though, that seems to be exactly what is happening. Polls upon polls, newspapers upon newspapers, pundits upon pundits comment upon just how many people oppose a war in Iraq. It would be disingenuous to pretend to know whether or not, there is a silent majority that supports the military option against Iraq, but it is equally disingenuous to pretend that the hordes of demonstrators shouting leftist, pro-islamic, pro-Saddam and pro-pacifist slogans, represent the prevailing public opinion in the world. Clearly, there are countries like France where the U.S. is seen as more of an enemy, than the murderous regime in Iraq, but there is no evidence that the bulk of other national populations feed into the same skewered mentality. Part of the reason why the polls show such lack of support for a tough position against Iraq, is simply that those people who are strongly against the military option, feel strongly enough about it to go onto the streets and show their opposition, while those people who do not oppose the military option, do not support it STRONGLY enough to go out onto the streets and show their support, or lack of opposition. It’s a fine analogy, but an example of this abides within the realm of U.S. politics-specifically the issue of gun control. The gun control advocates within the U.S. probably outnumber those who feel very passionately about their gun rights, yet while the gun control advocates will usually not vote on this issue ALONE, the gun rights advocates, will do precisely that, and so even though they are not in a majority, their passion makes up for their smaller number.
That is precisely the case, as far as Iraq goes. There is clearly a divergence of opinion as far as what course of action to take, but those who have a hard-line opposition to any sort of war in the gulf, would probably constitute a distinct minority. However, they are also the noisiest, most self-centered, most aggressive, most visible and conspicuous group of advocates, and so their actual number is vastly over-estimated.
The silent majority understands that whether or not there is a war in Iraq, there will be terrorism in today’s world, because terrorists simply look for enemies to hate and attack. September 11 occurred before there was any major stand taken against Iraq, or any other potential rallying points. If there wasn’t the issue of Iraq, there would still be excuses for terrorism, because that is the nature of terrorism-hate, hate and more hate. And that hate translates into a tolerance for violence and murder, in the name of causes. Those who advocate tolerance and eternal patience for prevaricating butchers like Saddam, simply buy into the game of pacifying, which never works. There will ALWAYS be an excuse for terrorism, and it is not responsible to try to dictate foreign or military policy, based on fear of terrorism. You don’t capitulate to a menace, and concede more ground to it. You face up to it, confront it, and refuse to bow to it.
The demonstrators all around the world, insist that they are not pro-Saddam or Anti-American. They are simply anti-war, and anti-Bush. Aside, from the circularity of claiming not to be anti-America, but to be anti-the leader of America, their assertion is simply not backed up by the facts. There are effigies of George W. Bush AND the American flag, burning, not just in Arab countries, but in European countries, and the words coming from the rabble-rousers are tinged with virulent anti-American rhetoric, and a complete intolerance for any sort of American leadership, while also sporting a COMPLETE AND TOTAL disinterest in addressing the issues that led to the present military situation. The demonstrators are not bothered by Saddam’s butchery and malicious military record and intent, but they are totally outraged by anyone daring to stand up to the butcher of Baghdad. They are outraged by the thought of the Iraqis who will die in a war, but they are not outraged by those who are tortured to death daily by Saddam, or those who have been gassed and butchered by the dictator. They insist that the war is all about America obtaining Iraq oil, but fail to mention that Iraq got into this position because it invaded Kuwait in August 1990 to plunder it for its oil and money, and refused to withdraw after being continuously told to do so the United Nations. They are outraged by the Iraqis who have died from sanctions against Iraq, but make no mention of the fact that Saddam has been responsible for a large portion of those deaths, by sending hundreds of thousands of critical dollars to the families of suicide bombers, while Iraqis are starving to death. So it’s the same old story. It’s all America, the big bad America, pounding away at the innocent, sweet, harmless choir boy and choir regime in Iraq.
The only present thing that is positive, is the fact that while these extremists pour into the streets in their churlish frenzy of pacifism, those who know what Saddam is all about, continue to prepare for what has to be done. They know that leadership is not conducted by taking polls for popularity of your position. Leadership is conducted by making the hard decisions you were elected to make, not just in time of peace and prosperity, but ESPECIALLY in the times of fear and frenzy. Winston Churchill lost his job after his brilliant and successful efforts of the second world war. Likewise, although my suspicion is that the wild demonstrators are a lot less powerful at the ballot box, it is a possibility that a lot of politicians MIGHT lose their jobs, over the Iraq imbroglio. But whatever the case, their decisions and policies should be informed by sound, rational, pragmatic principles, and not by hordes of churlish extremists all over the streets of European capitals, making more noise than most people care to hear.
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
It would appear that Secretary Rumsfeld’s remarks about the ‘New Europe’ are now being vindicated by the recent pledge of signed support for the U.S. stance on
Iraq, by Spain, Britain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic. The declaration of support which was inititated by the Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar of spain, urges Europeans to unite with the U.S. in calling Saddam Hussein to task in his search for weapons of mass destructions.
Striking about this declaration is the fact that not only does the group of European countries express support for the U.S., but they also warned the United Nations that it will lose credibility if it cannot adequately deal with Saddam Hussein. This clearly rebuts the constant pacifist refrain to the effect that the U.S. is completely isolated in its Iraq policy.
Although most of these countries are currently led by socially conservative parties, they are hardly a group that would qualify as nations of ‘Hawks’ or U.S. pawns. They comprise a wide diversity of cultures, national interests and histories, and are only united by their rare understanding of the criticality of the situation at hand. One of the things that may contribute to their understanding is the fact that Hungary (in 1956), Czech republic (formerly Czechoslovakia, in 1968), and Poland (in 1945), all tasted the sting of Soviet domination, invasion and ultimately butchery, back at the beginning of the cold war. Consequently the Eastern European countries are more in a position to understand the danger of standing quiet and doing nothing, while a lethal adversary flaunts International law with impunity and builds himself up into a fearsome threat. Back then, the rest of the world was unable to do anything, as the formidable Soviet forces crushed nascent democracies, and eliminated all forms of dissent in the most brutal ways possible. These countries thus have heightened sensitivity and awareness about the threat of Saddam Hussein, well demonstrated by his genocide of Kurds and internal dissenters, and his invasion of Iran and Kuwait, in the last century. They sense the incredible danger and folly in not confronting him while he can still be confronted, and Poland and the Czech republic (then Czechoslovakia), who were sacrificed to Hitler in attempts to appease him, understand that appeasement, patience and fear does not work with totalitarian systems or leaders. The way to overcome a bully is to stare him down and make him understand that you’re willing to do whatever it takes to address his belligerence.
There might be another common thread within some of the other New European countries-the experience of bloody internal politics/history, which makes one
never want to experience it again. Italy is a country who suffered from the dictator Mussolini, before and during the second world war, Spain fought a bloody civil war from 1936-1939, Portugal was a former brutal colonial power, Denmark is a small country which was defeated in 1940 on the first day of the German invasion and forced into a virtual servant/supplier to the Nazi War Machine. Specifically with Denmark, its liberation by the allies in May 1945 probably imbued it with a more profound code of how important it is to stand up for what is right, whether you are directly at risk or not. England, simply put, is England. The British record of standing up for what is right, through the
First World War, Second World War, the Gulf war and up till today, is a record that can never be vitiated or erased.
The fact that these countries also paid tribute to the U.S. role in protecting Europe from Nazism and communism, in the last century, is a colossally overdue
statement, from a continent that has too often taken the U.S. for granted. They also acknowledged how critical it is to engage in resolute action to combat the
new threat of terrorism and accumulation of weapons of mass destruction in the present and future. In this era of politically correct anti-U.S. rhetoric and pro-dictatorship pacifism, it is incredibly heartwarming to hear credit given where it is due.
This is the heart of the new Europe that Mr. Rumsfeld spoke about. The Europe that acts decisively rather than bickering and dithering. It is the Europe that
understands the strength in unity, determination, principle and courage, as opposed to political correctness, antagonism towards leadership, cowardice and complacency embodied by the old Europe. The new Europe that has not forgotten the past, and is determined to protect the future, has arrived.
Sunday, February 9th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
In Europe, the signs of antipathy are sometimes startling: A book claiming that Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center as part of a U.S. government conspiracy shot to the top of the bestseller lists in France. In Florence, Italy, writes Benny Irdi Nirenstein in National Review, "300,000 Europeans - many waving Palestinian flags and sporting T-shirt images of Che Guevara, Stalin and Mao Zedong - marched to denounce the possibility that the United States will liberate the Iraqi people."
Palestinian flags and images of Stalin? What gives?
One explanation for this hostility comes in an insightful article last week by the American analyst Ken Sanes in Hong Kong’s "Asia Times Online."
Sanes argues that there are not two but three "super-systems" with global aspirations, systems that shape much of the planet’s politics. One, of course, is militant Islam, with its dour message of extremism, intolerance, resentment, cruelty, aggression and totalitarian control. Then there is the American model of (what I term) individualistic liberalism - with its emphasis on the individualistic and even hedonistic "pursuit of happiness," plus its emphasis on free markets and limited government. These two outliers define the debate.
Then - and this is where Sanes’ analysis gets interesting - there is Europe’s offering of bureaucratic leftism (again, my term), which sits somewhere in between. Sanes notes how the European model shares some features with the American (its depending on the free market to create wealth) and some with the militant Islamic (its depending on strong governments to achieve its goals).
The geographic divisions are of course imperfect, there being plenty of statist liberals in the United States and at least some individualistic liberal types in Europe. (And Islamists in both places.)
Sanes’ originality lies in taking the Euro-American differences and presenting them not as two variants of one system, but as two distinct systems - not two dialects of one language, but two discrete languages.
If this interpretation is correct, recent Euro-American tensions over such issues as irradiated food, the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict are signs of a significant division, not just transient squabbles. The face-off between the Bush administration and, say, Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is deeper and darker than usually perceived.
Sanes’ perspective also has two huge implications worth pondering: The 1990s should be seen as but a temporary interlude between eras of cosmic competition. And America’s allies in the last round (against the Soviet Union) are shaping up as opponents in the new one.
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002
: RCN Administrator
President Bush assured the American people yesterday that he is not rushing into war with Iraq and promised to consult with Congress as he weighs a momentous decision to order a military attack to oust Saddam Hussein.
"I promise you that I will be patient and deliberate," Mr. Bush said in a speech at Madison Central High School in Mississippi. "We will continue to consult with Congress, and, of course, we’ll consult with our friends and allies."
One of those allies, Saudi Arabia, remains opposed. In an interview with the Associated Press, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said U.S. planes may not use his soil as a base to attack. The royal family member also objected to any Bush decision to attack Baghdad, creating a schism between two of the strongest allies in the last war against Iraq in 1991.
"We have told them we don’t [want] them to use Saudi grounds," the prince told AP. "The attack is not the right policy to take, especially since there is a possibility of implementing what the attack is purported to be used for, which is the return of the [U.N.] inspectors," he said.
Mr. Bush’s assurance came after some Democratic and Republican lawmakers said the president should seek congressional approval before ordering an invasion. It also came two days after Gen. Tommy Franks, who heads U.S. Central Command and would command an invasion of Iraq, briefed the president and his national security advisers on options to depose Saddam.
At the Pentagon, the nation’s two highest military officials, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, briefed reporters on the war against terrorism. The officials were again greeted by questions about a war with Iraq.
The Washington Times, quoting two administration officials, reported yesterday that the six-member Joint Chiefs will back military action to topple Saddam. CBS News reported earlier this week that the chiefs have said it will take 60 to 90 days to get an invasion force in place.
Gen. Myers said he would not comment specifically on the story in The Times. He said he would comment on the bevy of recent news articles on Iraq, some of which report that the chiefs are divided and some of which disclose various war plans.
"The way things are portrayed in these articles simply haven’t occurred in front of me, OK," Gen. Myers said. "And I can’t talk about our operational plans or what our advice is and so forth. But you can imagine if we were planning an operation against the moon, that we would have a lot of discussion about how best to do that and so forth."
He added, "The kind of advice that the military provides to Secretary Rumsfeld and the president and the rest of the National Security Council is certainly privileged communications, and I’m not going to share that with you here."
In Mississippi, Mr. Bush again said free nations cannot allow Saddam to obtain nuclear weapons that could be used against the United States to inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties.
"There are countries which harbor and develop weapons of mass destruction, countries run by people who poison their own people, countries whose leadership has got a terrible record when it comes to valuing life, particularly inside their own country," the president said. "And these are real threats, and we owe it to our children to deal with these threats."
On the use of military force, Mr. Bush said, "I will explore all options. But it’s important for my fellow citizens to know that as we see threats evolving, we will deal with them."
Mr. Bush has authorized the CIA to try to engineer a coup inside Iraq, and Gen Franks’ war planners are drawing up options, with feedback from senior Pentagon civilians. Administration sources say the final plan is likely to include a large land force, rapid air strikes against key command centers and weapons facilities, aid to indigenous rebels and a psychological-warfare campaign to turn the Iraqi military against Saddam, or, at least, to stop it from fighting.
With the exception of Britain, most NATO allies are cool toward the idea of invading Iraq. Among moderate Gulf nations, the United States can expect strong support from Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, all of which host American forces.
But Saudi Arabia is problematic. Faced with the threat of Iraq invading through Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia gave the first Bush administration wide latitude to deploy forces and stage attacks in Operation Desert Storm.
The ruling Saudi family says there will be no repeat this time. The oil-rich nation has not allowed its air bases to be used to wage attacks on Iraq in several major bombing campaigns since the 1991 war. It does, however, allow U.S. Central Command to use a major air command facility at the Prince Sultan air base to direct the war in Afghanistan.
The United States uses Saudi air bases to enforce the southern no-fly zone. Allied jets often fire on Iraqi air-defense units, but the Saudis consider this self-defense, not attacks.
The prince did not say in the AP story whether U.S. support aircraft, such as Airborne Warning and Control System planes, may use Saudi airspace in a war against Baghdad.
Mr. Rumsfeld said he welcomed public debate on Iraq in Washington as well as overseas.
"And if one wants to say, well, at this particular moment in history, the stars and the moons are not all lined up behind one person’s view or another person’s view, that’s fine," he said.