Re: U boats and EU rules !!
Originally Posted by
Donkeyman
->
Oh, l thought the WTO was in trouble because its founder member
and main funder ( USA) was miffed because it did'nt get any
preferential treatment anymore??
And NATO is a similar story , especially lsince the formation of the
EU, as the funding for NATO was only being supported by about
three of the EU members,USA,. UK, & one of the Nordic nations ?
Germany i and France as the main benificiaries of NATO paying
little or nothing towards the upkeep was particularly irksome to
Trump as he believed he was paying for Europe's protection from
Russia!! Justifiably l believe?
Although Europe contends that USA via NATO was really protecting
it's self?? Both sides have a point l think ! But currently l believe
the USA view is the right one!!
Unless of course the EU is planning to combine with Russia in the
long term ???
Thanks for your info though, l find it interesting to hear other points
of view ???
Donkeyman! 🤗🤗
You're only saying what I said but from a slightly different angle.
Which is that the organisations have turned political; the largest countries pay more for membership and then - bacause of that - they think they run the show.
That's not how any independent organisation should work, fairly obviously.
What follows is a lengthy summary - not anywhere near as lengthy as it should really be, but sometimes just enough will have to suffice.
If you want a shorter version see my earlier post rather than reply "TLDR".
Even you have fallen into the trap Donkeyman: the USA is/was one of 23 countries that formed the original GATT for example.
23.
The USA might be the largest signatory country, but size doesn't imply either leadership or responsibility.
If the organisations (either NATO or WTO) are to be truly independent and so support member countries equally, then both leadership and responsibility should be shared equally.
Regarding the USA blocking the appointment of WTO judges: given that previously these have been so lenient with China and that this has at least helped to form China's current stance can anybody realistically disagree that action is needed?
Talking hasn't worked, so actions come next.
As I say in earlier posts, something needs to be done and whether or not it can be agreed that this is the way to prompt change, that is what the outcome will lead to.
One way or another, and let's hope for the better.
Nato came about from the UK and France signing the Treaty of Dunkirk in 1947 which soon expanded to Beneluxe countries, as a promise to aid other member countries if Germany or Russia showed agression post-WWII.
The USA was interested by the late 40's but it was only due to the Korean war that the USA became interested enough to really recognise potential threats and do anything about it - and that is when NATO was really born; in the early 50's, not in 1949 when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.
But (again) this too was supposed to be a support mechanism for member countries.
The size and contribution are supposed to be unimportant; it's the principal of helping out others that was supposedly of prime importance.
Expansion changed that too, with (as I have said) too many members having their own agendas.
Regarding NATO, it is quite true that the stationing of NATO countries armed forces in Germany supposedly guarding Germany from Soviet agression led to quite an imbalance.
Germany didn't need a military sufficient to protect itself from aggressors, plus not having a larger military prevented the obvious accusations.
In recent years however that argumment has increasingly become outdated and unnecessary.
Germany has been able to use the vast sums which should have been contributed towards defence on other things to the benefit of Germany while the USA (and others) have footed the bill for Germany's defence.
(That's a bit of an oversimplification because the defence was in fact of most of Europe, but the gist is true.)
There might be some truth in the suggestion that the USA was in fact protecting itself; certainly the training and experience that having a military based at times beyond your own country can only be beneficial too.
But it's one heck of an expensive way of doing things and there is no doubt whatsoever that financially the benefits have always been in favour of certain European countries.
This imbalance needed changing around the time the Berlin Wall fell, so review really is well overdue.
There would probably never be an ideal time to re-think either the WTO or NATO, but just maybe a pandemic could provide that opportunity as the whole world seeks to adjust.