| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| UK bid to defuse EU defence row |
| 2003-10-21 |
| EFL Guardian Nato ambassadors tried to defuse a damaging transatlantic row about plans to boost EU defence capacity last night. Speaking after a special meeting at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters, a spokesman, Jamie Shea, insisted that a "transparent" discussion had reassured a worried US. British diplomats also played down talk of a crisis, but documents seen by the Guardian say the UK had to "contain US jitters" about last month’s summit in Berlin, where Tony Blair first signalled a shift. Peter Ricketts, Britain’s ambassador to Nato, is playing a key role trying to bridge the gap between the European allies and the US. He met the US envoy, Nicholas Burns, three times last week alone. EU and Nato officials were dismayed when ill-tempered exchanges between ambassadors led to the issue being portrayed as a major rift. They said yesterday’s session was held in a better atmosphere. But the matter is far from settled. Pentagon hawks have been blamed for creating a crisis atmosphere, while in Britain the Ministry of Defence, whose instinct is to protect Nato, is worried about a policy being devised in Downing Street. Whats the deal with using the term "Pentagon Hawks" without quotes in a non-editorial piece. I thought I was reading a news article. Is the writer implying that the pentagon is trying to start a new landwar in Europe? Nigel Sheinwald, Mr Blair’s new foreign policy adviser and a former ambassador to the EU, is credited with masterminding an approach he hopes will help mend fences in Europe after the Iraq war. Mr Blair insisted after last week’s EU summit in Brussels that Nato remained the cornerstone of European security. But Britain does want the union to undertake more missions like the recent one in the Congo and generally share more of the defence "burden". However, the government agrees with the US in opposing a call from Germany, France and Belgium for a new EU military HQ at Tervuren, near Brussels. The three countries - derisively dubbed the "chocolate summiteers" after their controversial mini-summit last April - led the anti-US revolt inside Nato over the question of defending Turkey in the run-up to the Iraq war. "The chocolate summit reflected the worst fears of US hardliners about the dangers of ESDP (EU security and defence policy) going off in a Nato-incompatible direction," Sir David Manning, Britain’s ambassador to the US, reported back to the Foreign Office. Faced with opposition from Mr Blair and other EU leaders, Paris and Berlin have agreed to modify their headquarters plan. But US officials fear that in return Britain will go along with some form of independent EU military planning. Further exchanges are expected in Brussels today I would think that we had better things to do than to fight with the EU about NATO. The EU structure will, for the most part prevent its members from being attacked. France and Germany are certainly in no imminent danger. I think we have bigger national security interests in South America, the Pacific Rim and ME. Let’s all have a group hug and we’ll continue to operate militarily with those NATO members with whom we maintain a common interest. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #2 They want a new NATO HQ then let them pay for it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-22 12:27:45 AM |
| #1 I could care less about an independet EU army, I would welcome it. Who cares. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-10-21 11:10:21 PM |