Wait a minute …

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer recently said that there can’t be a NATO where some members emphasize on the humanitarian aspects, while others emphasize on the combat aspect. This was mainly targetted at Germany’s role in Northern Afghanistan. Germany has sent in troops to protect efforts to rebuild the country. As skeptical as one may be about this, did Mr. de Hoop Scheffer actually check the list of NATO member countries before he made that statement?

I have serious doubts he did any kind of background check. As it turns out, Iceland – a country with no military forces, yet having waged a “cod war” with Great Britain and being a founding member of the NATO – offered originally only medical assistance. Wikipedia states:

Iceland, the sole member that does not have its own standing army, joined on the condition that it would not be expected to establish one. However, it has a Coast Guard and has recently provided troops trained in Norway for NATO peacekeeping. (Source)

Although the Daily Show made a persiflage of the fact that one troop was sent to Iraq and later pulled out, the truth is a little less exciting. It turns out Iceland was receiving benefits for the US marine base which it hosted until the end of 2006. By coincidence they left only two weeks after I arrived … really coincidence?! 😆 :mrgreen:

… anyway, I was told, Iceland was trying to keep the US base running, but failed in the end. So the rationale behind sending one troop and also entering the “coalition of the willing” was to keep the money flowing – plain and simple. The guys here have understood what modern societies are all about. Or as ABBA would state … money money money, must be funny, in the rich man’s world 😉

// Oliver

This entry was posted in EN, Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *