Iraq to NATO: We want to join (Remember CENTO?)
Iraq the Model reports:
The senior advisor in the Iraqi defense ministry Mohammed al-Askari told the press today that the ministry is looking forward to seeing Iraq become a member of the NATO and that the minister Sa’doun al-Dulaimi, the chief of staff and the higher commanders are planning to propose this plan to the new government once it’s seated.
Al-Askari told al-Hurra TV tonight that the chief commanders in the ministry had been discussing this subject with great interest for a long time and that:If al-Dulaimi gets a second term he will be working hard to convince the parliament about the necessity of joining the NATO as this falls in Iraq’s strategic interests….the recent changes in the Middle East region and Iran’s intentions to pursue nuclear weapons is encouraging us to move in this direction.
It’s not so far out, folks. In a sense, New Iraq is trying to “get back to the future.” Iraq was once part of CENTO, the Central Treaty Organization (originally named METO, Middle East Treaty Organization or The Baghdad Pact).
A military coup overthrew Iraq’s constitutional monarchy in 1958. In 1959 Iraq withdrew from CENTO. [A correction to my original post–and thanks for the reminder about Qasim.]
The Hashemite monarchy was overthrown by a military coup. The republican junta was overthrown by the Baath party five years after, lost power in 1963, and gained it back in 1968. ED NOTE: You’re right. I shouldn’t have written that from memory. A military coup overthrew the constitutional monarchy in 1958. Thanks for the correction.
Comment by Rajan R — 2/19/2006 @ 4:17 pm
Turkey is a NATO member, and Turkey borders Iraq. Iraq gets the same deal Germany got, including peace with other NATO members, NATO bases, and US troops ready to defend them against the monstrosities on their east & west borders. The US needs bases there to project power against the monstrosities on Iraq’s east & west borders. When Iraq gets attacked, NATO members who want to contribute can fix the problem, while the others help in lesser ways. I see this as a winner all around. France & Germany might even get behind it, since they realize now that they’ll never get Saddam back as a customer and source of bribes.
Comment by Dr Ken — 2/19/2006 @ 4:29 pm
But would they be allowed to join NATO? What are the rules about who can join, and would/could France (just for example, others might also want to) block their entry? jlb
Comment by jlb — 2/19/2006 @ 5:29 pm
Interesting news Austin, and you are right to point out the historical reference to the Baghdad Pact, but the Ba’th did NOT overthrow Iraq’s monarchy, the Qasim regime did. The Ba’th overthrew Qasim (with US support??) in 1963 before coming to power permanently with yet another coup in 1968. If you’re going to paint everyone as fascist you should at least get little things like ‘facts’ correct. ED NOTE: You’re right. I shouldn’t have written that from memory. A military coup overthrew the constitutional monarchy in 1958. Thanks for the correction.
Comment by John Measor — 2/19/2006 @ 7:29 pm
Actually I think Iraq as a member of NATO is a toss up (between good and bad). It would be nice to have an Islamic STEADY ally who has the fist of NATO behind them, but at the same time, Iraq will always be a coup away from instability. I think it would be best to wait until after the withdrawl of US forces at some point down the road to make that decision. I would first like to see if they are able to hold down the fort on their own.
Comment by Tovya — 2/19/2006 @ 11:16 pm
jib — Adding new members is effectlively by amendment of the treaty terms, and so must be ratified by all members. With such consent, any country can join; it is likely any country outside the defined NATO area of responsibility would have their accession protocol include a specific extension of such area. (Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey included such a provision with regard to the territory of Turkey, while also extending the area of responsibility to French Algeria, members’ islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, and the Occupation Zones of the U.S., U.K., and France in Germany and Austria.)
Comment by Warmongering Lunatic — 2/20/2006 @ 12:58 am
The US should, with Iraq, set up a new Human Rights Enforcement Group — focussed on free religion and free press. And military enforcement against those who violate either or both of these two UN freedoms. Any “country” that signed up to the UN charter, which offers inviolability of national borders, must be prepared to support their state’s responsibility to protect minority speakers and believers. Or else forfeit the border protection.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 2/20/2006 @ 7:58 am
Does NATO still exist? I mean as a functioning and useful entity, not as an empty relic of the past ? Seems that all those grandiose after WW2 alliences are dead. Some new thinking is needed, and new organizations (or none). Iraq joining NATO would be meaningless one way or another, since NATO is meaningless.
Comment by Jacob — 2/20/2006 @ 11:17 am