On Monday, Germany, France and Belgium vetoed a request from the United States under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty for the alliance to begin planning for the possible defense of Turkey if war breaks out against neighboring Iraq. Though Berlin has said it will supply Turkey with Patriot anti-missile rockets, the decision has unleashed a heated debate over the future of NATO.

DW-WORLD interviewed two members of the German parliament about the consequences of the decision -- one from the governing Social Democrats and another from the opposition Christian Social Union.

Rainer Arnold is a German parliamentarian and defense policy spokesman for Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democratic Party.

Why did Germany decide to join Belgium and France’s veto of efforts to begin planning NATO support for Turkey in the event of an Iraq war?

Of course it’s a problem that we resolved to make the next moves in cooperation with the French side. And, at the moment, our French partners have decided they don’t want to send any signals that we are making any preparations for a war. That’s the background. We Germans are clear on the point that if the Turks ask us for defensive help, we will answer with a "yes" and not "if" or "but." That’s how it will be. Because the Turks made the request through Article 4 (of the NATO Treaty) that forces us to go into consultations.

We have decided that where protection is necessary we will not ask why. The people there are possibly in danger, and naturally we will assist our NATO alliance partners, but with purely defensive systems. It is illogical to say that we will send Patriots to Israel or that we will allow AWACS planes to fly over Turkey, but when Turkey needs Patriots we say "no." That’s why it’s logical to say yes to defensive help for defense. This is just a question of the timing.

Will the decision to veto cause longterm damage to NATO?

If you had heard (NATO Secretary General George) Robertson in Munich -- he was basically very optimistic about the survival of the alliance -- then I would say no. But clearly the American side will not be very amused. But there is a clear message: Ultimately we will supply Turkey with Patriots. The question is just whether this is the right point in time for NATO to make plans for it. That is the one point. The Turks will get the Patriots if they want them.

When would the right time be?

I think we have three or four days until the inspectors deliver their further report. Then we will see what is in the report, whether there will be a further U.N. resolution or not and what it would look like. That would be the point in time to come to Turkey's aid.

NEXT PAGE: An opposition parlamentarian responds -- "This poses a serious threat to the future of NATO."

Christian Schmidt is a German parliamentarian from the Christian Social Union and sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Does yesterday's decision by Germany, Belgium and France pose a serious threat to NATO?

It poses a very severe danger to the future of NATO. There has never been a case where one member has requested protection and has then been refused it. I am very shocked that our government, the French and the Belgiums did what they did, because this is not about installing offensive or aggressive hardware, it's only a defense issue.

What is your opinion of the government's arguments for supporting the veto as a means of slowing down the possibility of war?

It's a very unconvincing argument. There are around 150,000 soldiers stationed around the Persian Gulf already, and we are only talking about two or four Patriot systems and AWACS that would defend the Turkish border. I don't think that not deploying these systems will slow down the possibility of war. In fact, it gives Saddam Hussein the impression there is a split in the alliance which he could deal with more easily than if there was a unified position on the matter.

If the Turkish believe their borders are in danger if military action against Iraq goes ahead, I don't see how we can say, "OK, Turkey, we'll wait until it really starts happening." We need up to four weeks to deploy these defensive structures. Today the debate has only been about planning. And planning does not increase the danger of war.

But Schröder's government doesn't share your opinion.

They aren't quite sure what they should be doing. They announced their position after the 10 a.m. NATO deadline for breaking silence. It was a half-hearted approach. The government obviously wants to show they are against the war for internal political reasons. But they also want to show that they support NATO. What is at stake here is the future of NATO. You have to ask yourself: What is the value of an alliance if there is a potential threat to an alliance member and then the alliance turns around and says, "No, we won't support you?" And this decision has come out of Berlin, which profited from the protection of the alliance for over 40 years! I see it as a very, very serious issue. And to be honest, there are lots of people in the German foreign office who are upset about what their own government is doing.

Do you think that by doing this Germany has severely undermined its position in the international community? I mean, just listen to what U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been saying.

Oh, it's not about Rumsfeld jokes. It's about whether there is reliability in our dogmatic foreign policy. Our allies and friends now have the impression they cannot rely on Germany. It's not that Germany has to follow every proposal by the United States or Britain or France, but Germany cannot be relied upon. And that's the problem.

Germany will not be able to avoid starting war, but what we can avoid is the isolation of our country. What is happening is the complete and utter failure of our foreign policy.

What the government should do is wait for Blix and ElBaradei's final report and not fix their position before they know the facts. Secondly, they have to realize that NATO and European political integration is in severe danger.

Interviews conducted by Ruth Elkins and Nancy Isenson.