Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Giuliani throws out a big idea.
Hizzoner wants NATO to expand way beyond the North Atlantic, and embrace allied nations that are in the "hot zones":
The implications of this NATO expansion are the biggest of anything that's been floated in the campaign so far. Admitting India and Japan simultaneously would be seen in Beijing as darn near a declaration of war. Could Musharraf (or any "moderate" Pakistani regime) survive a military-defense alliance between the US and New Dehli? And never mind the ramifications of admitting Israel to NATO. Would every terrorist attack in Haifa require a military response from Brussels? Sure, Israel's our ally, but do we want to be that closely tied to every hiccup in the mideast "peace process"?
Rudy's painting with the bright, bold colors that Newt's been talking about. This is the kind of proposal that can carry you to victory or sink you on its own.
Unfortunately for Rudy, my guess is that this one's more sink than swim. I don't even think he could even marshall enough European support to extend the NATO invitations he's proposing here. There will be a lot of handwringing about the diplomatic impact of even proposing this type of NATO expansion, if his comments get any media play (assuming Rudy doesn't recant promptly). My guess is he's going to take a hit for this one.
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani urged NATO to admit Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore on Wednesday as part of proposals to combat Islamic extremism.
The implications of this NATO expansion are the biggest of anything that's been floated in the campaign so far. Admitting India and Japan simultaneously would be seen in Beijing as darn near a declaration of war. Could Musharraf (or any "moderate" Pakistani regime) survive a military-defense alliance between the US and New Dehli? And never mind the ramifications of admitting Israel to NATO. Would every terrorist attack in Haifa require a military response from Brussels? Sure, Israel's our ally, but do we want to be that closely tied to every hiccup in the mideast "peace process"?
Rudy's painting with the bright, bold colors that Newt's been talking about. This is the kind of proposal that can carry you to victory or sink you on its own.
Unfortunately for Rudy, my guess is that this one's more sink than swim. I don't even think he could even marshall enough European support to extend the NATO invitations he's proposing here. There will be a lot of handwringing about the diplomatic impact of even proposing this type of NATO expansion, if his comments get any media play (assuming Rudy doesn't recant promptly). My guess is he's going to take a hit for this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
September
(36)
- Huckabee News
- Newt not running
- A nasty bug
- General Lies and Power
- Looks like someone forgot to write his check
- Mission Accomplished...
- Clintons kill GQ story
- NY, NY
- Columbia
- On picking the "electable" candidate
- Stop the madness
- Best. Post. Ever.
- Newt speculation with a ring of truth
- Giuliani throws out a big idea.
- The Great Debate
- Mitt on the specifics
- '08
- Tony Blankley begs for Newt
- Fred's early bumbles
- It speaks for itself
- Romney
- As if I needed...
- Drudge: "DOWD, RICH FREED: NY TIMES to end paid In...
- France mans up
- A sports departure
- On the decline of party power, and the rise of adv...
- More Newt
- Rudy and the politics of abortion
- Paging Jay Cost!
- Senate swinging left
- Why'd I click on Drudge?
- Never forget
- I normally don't find endorsements very meaningful,
- Bill for Hill's Veep?
- Dems target Mitt
- ...I have a secret plan to make all terrorists spo...
-
▼
September
(36)
4 comments:
Mind you, I'm no expert on Chinese foreign policy, but am I wrong on this one?
I mean, if China proposed a defensive-military alliance with Canada and Mexico (and there was at least a reasonable chance both countries wanted to respond affirmatively), how might we respond?
I'm sure it would be threateding to China. But, I don't think there much of a chance of anything like this happening. India is not likely to make an alliance like this. In addition to the reasons you pointed out, India has and wants to maintain a relationship with China. Recently, the U.S. offered India a deal for econimic incentives in return for not pursuing nuclear weapons. While it has clear economic advantages for India, they don't want to be perceived as a client-nation of the U.S. (I know. I was just there and saw a public debate between members of parliament about it on Indian T.V.)
Interesting. I know in their past India has also had border skirmishes with China over Kashmir and the two nations have largely viewed each other as long-term strategic rivals. I would think the security benefits of NATO membership would be a far greater enticement than throwing a few suitcases of dollars at them, as with the non-proliferation negotiations. Also, NATO nations tend to be viewed as partners, not client states (I think many Italians, Spaniards, and Frenchmen would wince at being called a "client state" of the US).
But you've got your finger a lot closer to the pulse than I do.
Looking at the list of countries I think only Australia and Israel might agree to join NATO. I think the other countries are wary of aligning themselves with US at the present time, especially in an agreement that would place requirements on military response.
I think the US has to be careful here as Fredo mentioned - we don't want to force ourselves into responding to all flare-ups around the world. We already have one such agreement with Taiwan should China invade, and you can only imagine how ugly this would turn. If we had to defend Israel every time they had a border skirmish, that's not in our best interest. Same for India flare-ups with Pakistan over Kashmir.
US needs one thing: intelligence from these countries and their willingness to act on it. We should link at least a portion of foreign aid to how well a country (a) provides us with useful info, and (b) takes steps to stamp out terrorism in their own country. Reward those who take appropriate steps that ultimately lead to our safety and security.