BUSH FAILED AT NATO CONFERENCE

Nato summit: George Bush abandoned over Ukraine and Georgia[t]
__________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT! EARLY EDITION
BY Terry Bankert 4/03/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 __________________________
Article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
And Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=26895__________________________

NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine

The Nato summit could have serious repercussions for relations between Europe and Russia. US President George W. Bush believes membership can be offered to any European democracy, so offers to Ukraine and Georgia to join are perfectly correct. Even Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer favours the two nations joining the organisation. Yet there are those who are against the idea. [g]

A REFLECTION

When in my post as a Municipal Ombudsman On occassion I would conference with an International Group concerned with Oversight of Police. At one I was dressed down , politely, by a Canadian Provincial Ombudsman . The topic was American arrogance and how little we really know of the world, our neighbors and the international community. He was of couse right but I did not alter the egotistical arrogance of my public career. ( I am much humbled in the private sector.) The following discussion on the NATO Conference is a case in point. To many this is a really big deal. I did not have a clue on first impression what was so important. These blogs are to inform me, share opinion and have a little fun. I learned a little more about the world, forgive me if it still does not show.[trb]

BUSH FORGOT LINES

President Bush threw theNATO summit meeting here off-script on Wednesday with his firm public disagreement with two key allies, Germany and France, over how close a relationship the organization should have with Ukraine and Georgia, who aspire to membership.[n]
President Bush was being abandoned by his closest allies last night as his appeal for Ukraine and Georgia to be earmarked for Nato membership met with opposition from Britain, France and Germany at the opening of the alliance summit in the Romanian capital. [t]

A LONE VOICE..NATO IS TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFER

Expanding NATO is meant to make the alliance's members safer. Allowing Skopje to become a NATO member while it claims that Northern Greece is occupied territory and Alexander the Great was a Skopje Slav won't really make the Alliance safer. Ukraine and Georgia's problems are different and their applications should be supported in the long-run, but in the short-run they should be given help to achieve internal stability (after all, half of the Ukraine doesn't want to join NATO, so what's the point of introducing that instability to the Alliance? Lionel Stokes, Westminster, England[t]

THE RUSKIES FORGED THE SPLIT

Earlier, senior British officials said that the Prime Minister was pressing for a compromise that would keep the alliance together, emphasising that the membership action plan was simply a process. They denied that Moscow had forged a split. [T]

THEY COULD TURN DOWN THE HEAT

...Russia has a couple of moves it can make to underline its dislike of the concept of the former Soviet satellite states joining Nato. Namely, as major supplies of energy to the Ukraine and Georgia, Russia could always turn off its oil and gas supplies to them, as it has done before when former Soviet states started to "think for themselves". It comes as a rude awakening to the populace when, in midwinter, there is no oil or gas to heat the home.[g]

NO MORE KROUGHTS AND FROGS FOR DINNER.

Mr. Bush’s position — that Ukraine and Georgia should be welcomed into a Membership Action Plan, or MAP, that prepares nations for NATO membership — directly contradicted German and French government positions stated earlier this week.[n]
A NATO spokesman says he does not expect the bloc to start the membership process for Georgia and Ukraine at this week's summit in Bucharest.[v]

IT MUST BE THE CHIPS

Other Nato leaders, including Gordon Brown, thought that it was premature to put Ukraine and Georgia into the official membership system, even though it can take ten years before a formal invitation is made. The British judgment was that although there was full support for both Ukraine and Georgia, the question of "when" they joined should remain in the balance. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and President Sarkozy of France were of the same mind. [T]

BIT OF MORE THAN HE COULD CHEW

American officials at the conference, run by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said that any failure to support the action plan process would be regarded as a concession to Moscow. President Putin has strongly opposed any move to draw Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. President Saakashvili of Georgia has also said that failure by Nato to offer the prospect of membership would amount to appeasement of Russia. [T]

NOT MUCH FAITH TO HOLD ON TO

But Mr. Bush was described by one senior American official as wanting to "lay down a marker" for his legacy as his presidency winds down, and as not wanting to "lose faith" with the Ukrainian and Georgian peoples and the other former republics of the Soviet Union.[n]

SUSHI

Mr. Bush, speaking in advance of the meeting, said he was prepared to argue his case at a dinner of all NATO leaders on Wednesday night, before a decision is made on Ukraine and Georgia on Thursday. Germany and France have said they will block any invitation to Ukraine and Georgia.[n]

ARGUED TO NO AVAIL

Spokesman James Appathurai told reporters after Wednesday night's working dinner that the allies agreed that the two former Soviet states will eventually be offered a Membership Action Plan, but he believes it will not happen this week.[V]

A NICE JESTURE

"This is my final NATO summit," Mr. Bush said. Referring to both Ukraine and Georgia’s democratic revolutions, he said: "Welcoming them into the Membership Action Plan would send a signal to their citizens that if they continue on the path to democracy and reform they will be welcomed into the institutions of Europe. It would send a signal throughout the region" — read Russia — "that these two nations are, and will remain, sovereign and independent states."[n]

WHAT WAS SHE THINKING, THIS IS THE WMD GUY...

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was described as upset and even angry on Wednesday by some German officials. She and Mr. Bush have had numerous conversations over the last two months about the issue, and Ms. Merkel had thought that a compromise solution was in the works. That was that Washington would support a warm statement welcoming the interest of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO and encouraging them to work toward a MAP membership in time for NATO’s 60th anniversary summit next year in Berlin.[n]

ARE THESE COUNTRIES ESTABLISHED ENOUGH FOR ACCESS TO THE COOKIE JAR

Germany and France believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia, which firmly opposes the move. In fact, senior diplomats here said, the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, has threatened to cancel his planned first-ever visit to the NATO meeting on Friday if the two former Soviet states enter the MAP program.[n]

TRADITION IS TO TALK FIRST TO OUR ALLIES BEFORE WE INSULT THEM

Ms. Merkel visited Moscow on March 8 and met both Mr. Putin and his elected successor, Dmitri A. Medvedev, who takes over in May. She told them that Russia would not be allowed a veto over NATO membership. But a senior German diplomat, Wolfgang Ischinger, said that a MAP offer to a divided Ukraine could destabilize the new government there, and that not enough diplomacy had taken place beforehand with Russia.[n]

LITTLE BUSINESS , LITTLE VODKA, ROPE A LITTLE BULL

Mr. Ischinger, Germany’s ambassador to London, noted that Mr. Bush and both Russian leaders would meet after the NATO summit meeting in Sochi, a Russian resort on the Black Sea, and said: "It’s the absence of this discussion that makes me wonder if NATO has done enough of its homework at this point on this front."[n]

THESE TWO COUNTRIES ADMISSIONS ARE LIKE GIVING A U.N. VOTE TO RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT

Germany, he said, supported an "open-door policy" for NATO, including the offer of full membership at this summit to the Western Balkan nations of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, and later to Ukraine and Georgia. But Germany felt that Ukraine and Georgia were not now ready even for a MAP plan.[n]

SOUNDS LIKE THE CAST OF TAXI

The American position is supported by the newer members of NATO from the old Eastern Europe, with Romanian, Estonian and Latvian leaders emphasizing that MAP is a set of difficult requirements for NATO membership, including internal political and military reforms and guarantees of civil liberties, and can take a decade to fulfill.[n]

SMALL COUNTRIES GIVEN A LITTLE POWER ACT UP

"MAP is more of a big stick than a big carrot," said the Estonian president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, at a conference here of the German Marshall Fund. "It forces nations to reform even when they don’t want to do it." The Latvian president, Valdis Zatlers, warned that delay to MAP delayed crucial internal debates. "No action plan, no action," he said. "If we delay, we postpone the inevitable. We have to give MAP."[n]

THEY THINK BUSH COULD HAVE A POSITIVE LEGACY.

Ronald Asmus, who was a key figure in the Clinton administration’s enlargement of NATO and now runs the German Marshall Fund’s Brussels office, said that "Bush’s speech set up a dramatic battle that will be fought out over the next two days and whose outcome will be important in shaping his legacy, and America’s diplomatic standing in the alliance."[n]
Mr. Asmus said that success was possible short of the Membership Action Plan, but said that the summit needed to "send a strong enough signal to the countries to deepen their reforms and to Moscow not to increase its pressure on them." Failure, he said, "would be a statement that produces no pressure to reform and that Moscow reads as a pale green light to ratchet up the pressure."[n] Do ya think.[trb]

A RENDEZVOUS

Mircea Geoana, a former Romanian foreign minister, pointed out that in 1997, Romania and Slovenia were urged to wait by Washington before entering MAP but were given a "rendezvous clause" in a NATO communiqué that led to MAP later on.[n]

THESE GUYS CAN‘T WALK IN THEIR SHOES....

A senior German official pointed out with some exasperation that Ms. Merkel was using the same argument now as Washington did then. But of course President Bush is not President Clinton, and President Putin is not President Boris Yeltsin, and Russia appears to be moving away from the West now, not toward it.[n]

CHENEY MUST NOT HAVE BEEN WITH BUSH

Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, said that Mr. Bush’s speech was "a combination of valedictory and marker-laying." Mr. Bush would probably lose the argument on Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Chollet said. "But he doesn’t care so much, and he believes he’s on the right side of the issue."[n]

MORE TROOPS

Getting NATO support for more troops in Afghanistan and for a limited European missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic is probably more important to Mr. Bush before the meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Asmus and Mr. Chollet both said.[n]
In his speech, Mr. Bush urged the alliance to "maintain its resolve and finish the fight" in Afghanistan and to deploy more troops there to combat the Taleban, Al Qaeda and other threats around the world.[n] I CANNOT TOTALLY DISAGREE.[TRB]

ROMANIA MUST COMMIT MORE TROOPS?

With the war in Afghanistan now in its seventh year, and 47,000 NATO troops already there, Mr. Bush used the speech and a later press conference to remind the alliance of the threat of terrorism to the entire West. "We expect our NATO allies to shoulder the burden necessary to succeed," he said, appearing with Romania’s president, Traian Basescu, at a Black Sea retreat.[n]

PAINTED INTO A CORNER THEY ARE...

France has said that it will send "several hundred" more troops, probably to Afghanistan’s east, Poland and Romania will also send more troops, and Washington is sending another 3,200 marines. But a full accounting of any additional troops will not be clear until Thursday; Canada had said it would consider pulling its troops out of the dangerous south unless other countries provided another 1,000 soldiers. [n]

FRIES ANYONE

The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, said on Wednesday he "is very confident" Canada will get the reinforcements it needs. "We’ll see what the French decide, they made no commitment to us or to NATO," Mr. Harper said, adding that: "Anything France does, it is a victory, a step forward."[n]

HEY BABY ...WHATS YOUR NAME...

The summit opened with no resolution to an alliance embarrassment. Greece continued to say that it would oppose Macedonia’s membership in NATO because of a failure to agree on a new formal name for the country. NATO works by consensus, so continued Greek opposition would mean Macedonia does not join now.[n]
Appathurai said the allies agreed to invite Albania and Croatia to join. But he said Greece is blocking membership at this time for Macedonia because of their dispute over the use of the name Macedonia.[v] It’s their name for gods sake.[trb]

JANE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL PLAIN

In Athens, officials said work continued on the possibility that Macedonia could join NATO under a "provisional new name." Greece insists that Macedonia alone as a name would allow the tiny country a potential revanchism that could destabilize the Balkans.[n]

ANOTHER LONLEY VOICE

First of all Thanks to Nato for extending the invitation to Albania. While it is never right to strip someone off of their identity, Greece does have a valid point. I'm not sure if this should be used as a bargain tool for entry into a political and military alliance, however it is not right to claim the history of another and bear the name and glory of a different people. In addition Macedonia has not fully met the Ohrid agreement concerning the rights of its largest minority, the Albanians. Only two weeks ago the later, left their positions from the political alliance. These events make the country unstable to be considered a NATO ally. Perhaps by next NATO summit, these issues are resolved and FYROM will be a model state in the Balkans. Good luck! Darien, Tirana, Albania[T]

AND ANOTHER, MAYBE THERE ARE A LOTS OF THINKING PEOPLE OUT THERE

Well, as listening all of this comments I could say one thing, as a Croatian expat living in Skopje, Macedonia, I would ask you one question, who gives rights to any to say that Greeks have right to say who will be called who, the main Greek problem is that they Kicked out thousands of Macedonians during the 2 World war out of their homes and land from Macedonia in Greece, and they are afraid that Macedonians will claim their rights to give them back the land and the houses of 'Macedonia' seatled in Greece. It is also very true that wholle of this part of Macedonia belongs to Slavic Macedonians, Greeks knows that and are thretenning, According to the Bucurest treathy in 1912 Macedonia was divided in 3 parts, on 100 years Vardarian to Serbs, Ageian to Greeks and Pirinian to Bulgaria after 100 years it is ending in some years, and Greeks are afraid of this too. And on other side Greeks have problems with everybody, Albania, Turkey, Macedonia, all of their neighbours. No wonder they opose Johnny, Skopje, Macedonia[T]

OH, NO NOT A DESTABILIZED BALKINS. HERE COME THE BRITS

But when asked whether there was still a chance the formal summit session on Thursday could take such a decision, he added: "I do not expect it to be tomorrow."[r]

Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

—where did this stuff come from
[V]
Voice of America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-02-voa60.cfm
[n]
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html?ref=world
[R]
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0249940720080402
[t]
Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3670335.ece
[G]
Gulf News
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/editorial_opinion/world/10202502.html

46484

Sphere: Related Content

TORTURE AND AMERICA..............

IS THIS, the American way!
__________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 4/02/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book .

http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362
___________________________
Article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
And Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=26895#26895 __________________________

In the name of national security and the war on terrorism should the presidents executive authority supercede our laws , international laws and human decency to allow George W. Bush to order eye gouging, genitalia cutting, slicing ,dicing and otherwise mediaeval torture of civilians that some bureaucrat has labeled at threat? Your thought? Mine is no, and he should be prosecuted.[trb]

LEAGAl JUSTIFICATION, EXCUSE, WHITE LIES, TO JUSTIFY TORTURE

The Justice Department late Tuesday released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government's legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants outside the United States. [b]

LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS OR CIVIL RIGHTS?

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques. [b]

AGGRESSIVE

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.[b]

WHEN US GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU ARE AN ENEMY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does "not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.":[b]

LIMITED OBLIGATION TO NOT HARM THE BODY: PULLING FINGER NAILS STICKING KNIVES IN EYES CUTTING OFF......GET THE POINT?

The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don't apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.[b]

HOW CAN TORTURE NOT BE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT?

It also defines the United States' obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other international treaties prohibiting torture to be confined to ensuring that interrogators do not apply "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined by American constitutional law, regardless of differing international standards.[b]

IT APPLIES TO OUR SOLDIERS BUT NOT THEIRS....

And it restates the oft-repeated view held by administration officials that the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war, does not apply to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.[b]

WE CAN SUBJECT CIVILIANS WHO ARE NOT OF OUR CULTURE TO PHYSICAL PAIN?

The memo also reflected Yoo's belief in that the executive branch had the inherent authority during wartime to obtain information by necessarily hazardous means: [b]

Call a stranger in another country alQaeda we can then pull his eyes out and its okay,some think.[trb]

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."[b]

It was during 2003, while the memo was operative, that guards and other military personnel committed the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, Iraq. The memo was withdrawn shortly thereafter, but before those abuses came to light.[b]

The memo was prepared by Yoo for William Haynes, then the Pentagon's general counsel and another key player in the administration's legal strategy. It was declassified Monday by Haynes' acting successor, Daniel Dell' Orto. Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.[b]

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to release the memo and others like it, had this to say Tuesday evening:[b]

It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress. [b]

The memo they have declassified today reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration. It is no wonder that this memo, like the now-infamous “Bybee memo†, could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn. Like the “Bybee memo†, this memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.[b] Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators See[w]

Memorandum: Part 1 (PDF) Memorandum: Part 2 (PDF) Our Congress has a duty to investigate the use of torture by the United States Government, punish those who have violated our laws to include George W. Bush, and change laws when they inadeuqately protect human rights. How hypocritical to protest any other governments failure to protect human rights until this duty is fulfilled.[trb]

Posted here by Terry Bankert ... http://attorneybankert.com/

Join my political party of preference, http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

--
[b] Baltimore Sun http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/justice_dept_releases_interrog.html [w] Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102213.html?wpisrc=newsletter

[trb] CAP headlines and comments of Terry Bankert http://attorneybankert.com/

46764/534

Sphere: Related Content