• Lysergid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    While I agree Europe bend rules sometimes, your examples are out of the place. Europe (NATO actually) assisted in Afganistan because it respected law - UN is authority in such cases and it authorized operations as per article 5 triggered by US. One can argue that Europe supported Israel but honestly EU part of Europe is just slow to react, even when they just need to withdraw support. I feel like EU didn’t want to support Israel (and looking at how mad orange man support was not according to expectations) but since it takes so much time for 27 countries to coordinate on foreign policy it was going by inertia.

    • MastKalandar@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Why would 27 countries have a common foreign policy ??🤔🤔🤔

      They were supposed to be a commonwealth, right ???

    • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Article 5 is NATO not UN. And multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda before the UN mission became a thing.

      You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.

      As for foreign policy each country does maintain its own foreign policy to a certain extent. And yet the largest countries in the EU are staunch allies of Israel.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda

        Since it was the Taliban who were sheltering Al-Qaida (and lying about it), as well as hosting other jihadi groups, that part actually made sense. There was no way to go after Al-Qaida without also confronting the Taliban. The complication was that the Taliban had been created and were still supported by the Pakistani ISI (their CIA equivalent) and by elements of the Pakistani military.

        • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          It could have been done diplomatically but that wasn’t even attempted. And if supporting and sheltering terrorists is the main factor then I can think of some of their allies that they’ve yet to act against

      • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I’m not saying Article 5 is UN. I’m saying UN authorizes NATO operations (including the one initiated by triggering article 5) meaning Europe’s participation in Afgan invasion actually example of following international law, not selectively ignoring it

        • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          NATO has nothing to do with the UN.

          They later did make it a UN mission but from September through December it was an unsanctioned invasion

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.

        Sure, but that goes against the point you’re trying to make.

        • BananaLama@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          How so?

          I’d like to preemptively note that the UN resolution regarding Afghanistan didn’t happen until December while the invasion began in September.