Letter: Threat to Nato

Dr F. H. Chowdury
Monday 29 November 1999 01:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Last week's agreement between the Prime Minister and President Chirac to form a rapid reaction force ready to move into action in an emergency is more of a French initiative than a British one. It also kicked America in the teeth for its reluctant intervention in the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Despite Nato's preparedness in the defence of Europe and its unequivocal commitment to it, America prevaricated and the Europeans were in disarray during the Balkan crises.

The Anglo-French defence entente will clearly affect Nato in the long run. Such an alliance between the UK and France, especially when the latter has been the most lukewarm member of Nato, will harm the treaty.

France has resented American domination in the European security matters in the post-war years. France and UK have not been reliable partners in defence and foreign policy before and after the Second World War. The UK has been an active member of Nato and a staunch ally of the US. France sees no long-term American role in Europe. This Anglo-French venture in European defence is bound to raise suspicion in President Clinton's mind, however much he may offer apparent support.

The plan will also undermine the UN's peace-keeping role. Who will authorise the use of the intervention force, and what legitimacy will it have? The leading European countries may consider an intervention in a conflict is necessary; such moves may not necessarily have UN support.

Dr F H CHOWDHURY

Hickling, Nottinghamshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in