At 08:26 PM 9/14/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>I do, however, have a few more questions for you:
>>
>>1) Do you think that the Netherlands should fulfill its obligations under
>>the North Atlantic Treaty? If "no", please provide a detailed explanation.
>
>Yes. It signed the Treaty, so it should abide by its rules. I must point
>out however (again) that the attack on the US was an act of terrorism, not
>an act of war. It is therefore none of NATO's concern.
>
>
>>2) What do you think the reaction of the Netherlands would be, if after the
>>Netherlands was attacked, it then invoked Article V with the unanmious
>>consent of the North Atlantic Council, and was then told by the United
>>States that the US will not provide troops or weapons for the defence of
>>the Netherlands?
>
>This is irrelevant. No country has performed an act of war against The
>Netherlands, so there is no reason for us to invoke Article V. In the case
>of a military strike, yes, we would be furious if the US would give your
>response after Article V was invoked. The relationship between our
>countries is, however, such that this will not happen. In the case of a
>terrorist attack, we will be quite able to deal with it without dragging
>NATO into it.
I'm sorry, Jeroen, but the Netherlands, along with every single other NATO
country has already agreed that this *was* an attack, and thus Article V
has already been invoked.
You may have a minority opinion that Article V should not have been
invoked, but unfortunately, it is a little late for that now.
Thus, I would like to ask you to try answering those questions again,
keeping in mind that the invocation of Article V is already a *fact*.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
