RSS

Fri, Dec 7th 2012, 23:59

Zoila Victoria Acevedo , NYU , (4)

France has always been a strong supporter of humanitarian aid, in result to the recent Libya crisis they have sent a large amount of aid and are in support of overthrowing Qaddafi. Defense of Europe within NATO definitely requires a common European initiative as you have stated. However, France's influence will definitely have push for more European involvement to aid and help the Libyans to overthrow their ruler. The conditions in Libya are horrid and Europe has sent a large amount of aid to help the conflict to those Libyans who have been displaced as a result of fear from their government. Different views amongst the NATO members on the issue of Libya will require mutual agreement and I believe France's view on the issue will persuade NATO become more involved and offer more humanitarian assistance to Libya.

Sun, Dec 9th 2012, 05:12

Maryalice Aymong

The response to the crisis in Libya is an excellent demonstration of how NATO can work effectively to coordinate an operation that leads to the desired result. In that case, Qaddafi was removed and the process of rebuilding the country was taken up Libyan citizens. Of course, Libya still has a long way to go in that process.

The question now is, how will NATO be involved, if at all, in addressing the crisis in Syria. Will France, the U.S., or other European nations step up and shed light on the atrocities that are going on under Assad and finally call for action to be taken? Why has the response been so different from the response we saw to Libya? Will NATO have a more assertive reaction now that the potential for chemical weapons use has entered the discussion?

Wed, Dec 12th 2012, 11:40

Yuki Yoshida, New York University, (6)

I agree with the idea that Europe should have its independent military force to be able to respond to potential conflicts that could happen in Europe as well as in North African region. NATO was created to confront the threat of Soviet Communist. Now, Soviet has gone and NATO just functioned as a tool for the US to maintain its hegemony in Europe. The reason why NATO intervened in Libya is that all intervening states, especially had vital national interests t preserve in Libya. That's why they intervened. If there is no national interests involved, states would not intervene. That's part of the reason why they would not intervene in Syria. There has been an idea proposed, developed, and I guess actualized by mainly Germany and France, that Europe establish its own military force to be independent from US military umbrella. This efforts have to be continued if Europe is really seeking to be independent from the US hegemony because NATO, though it is often viewed as a US-Europe military alliance in a sense is a US-dominated organization and the decision making is greatly affected by US interests. Europe should have its own interests and positions in responses to future conflicts. Therefore, further developing the European independent force should be promoted to eventually protect their interests and own security.