• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

• Gen. Ralston’s visit to Warsaw was noted by local and international media. Warsaw’s PAP news agency, Feb. 7, reported that in a news conference Thursday, Gen. Ralston stressed there was no crisis in the NATO Alliance. "The general believes that a technology gap between the United states and its European allies gives no grounds for venturing such an opinion," said the dispatch quoting him saying: "I would definitely not speak about a crisis." According to the dispatch, he pointed to operations in the Balkans with 60,000 soldiers involved. He also noted that contrary to general expectations, after Sept. 11, it was the allies who rendered assistance to the United States. This showed how inadequate predictions of threats are. The dispatch further reported that Gen. Ralston assessed positively a six-year modernization plan of the Polish armed forces and praised the country for persistently lowering the number of soldiers in favor of better equipment and training. Polish Radio 1, Feb. 7, also focused on the fact that Gen. Ralston made a positive appraisal of the army modernization program and Poland’s progress in its integration with the Alliance. To illustrate this, said the broadcast, Gen. Ralston cited the fact that this year the largest allied exercises would be taking place in Poland. Thirty thousand troops would take part in maneuvers taking place at seven Polish training grounds. The general also gave assurances that he would not intervene in Poland’s choice of a multirole aircraft, said the program, which carried Gen. Ralston saying, with superimposed Polish translation: "It is the Poles who should decide whether the aircraft is U.S.-made, Swedish-made, French-made or made elsewhere. But as a commander, I will pay attention to whether I have well-trained airmen who use appropriate technology which is interoperable with that used in the Alliance." The dispatch further said that asked whether the Americans would assist Polish servicemen from the contingent preparing for action in Afghanistan to reach the area of proposed operations, Gen. Ralston replied that the decision was up to the American command headquartered in Florida. Talking to reporters in Warsaw Thursday, Gen. Ralston rejected concerns that NATO was in crisis, saying events elsewhere in the world were only deflecting attention from its substantial contribution to peace in the Balkans, reported France’s AFP, Feb. 7. "I certainly would not describe NATO as being in a crisis at all if you look at what NATO is doing today to support a very, very valid mission (in the Balkans)," the dispatch quoted Gen. Ralston saying and adding: "Sometimes because of news events in other parts of the world the real issues in (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and Kosovo and in Bosnia-Herzegovina get pushed off the front page of the papers. That doesn’t mean those very important missions go away." The dispatch added that Gen. Ralston insisted NATO forces were playing their part in fighting terrorism. He pointed out that NATO naval forces were stationed in the Mediterranean to stop arms shipments and noted a number of countries needed NATO help to prevent their being used as bases for terrorists, including Lebanon, Algeria, Georgia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the dispatch noted.

• In a long interview in National Journal, Secretary General Lord Robertson, when asked about NATO becoming irrelevant due to a changing in the international security environment, pointed out that NATO has never been busier in its entire history. "We’ve just invoked Article 5, …we have three on-going peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, forty-six nations are participating in our Partnership for Peace program … we are forming this new relationship with Russia, which is groundbreaking …we also have developed a special relationship with Ukraine …we also have a Mediterranean Dialogue with seven North African countries, including Israel, which is shaping up as a Partnership for Peace for North Africa." I don’t really have time to worry about NATO’s relevance, we are too busy, he reportedly stressed. Regarding the summit in Prague, Lord Robertson made clear that it would not just be dealing with enlargement but also with improving NATO capabilities and forming a leaner and meaner command structure.

Media continue to focus on transatlantic relations and NATO’s future.

Under the title, "NATO’s need for reform," the Financial Times claims that the role and structure of NATO are in question as never before. The Alliance is in urgent need of surgery if it is to play a meaningful role in the world’s security, as the leaders of its most important member, the United States, say they want it to do. Noting that future enlargement will make NATO more cumbersome and more political, the article suggests that this should trigger a debate about how its military decision-making processes can be streamlined. "To have a sound foundation, NATO must have military coherence and purpose," stresses the newspaper. It also predicts that tangible progress on capabilities would make Europe more credible in the U.S. and put the onus on Washington to define its future vision of the Alliance. "Without that vision, NATO can have no future," the article insists.

National Journal in a long article, wrote that September 11 underscored the common values America shares with Europe, but the war against terrorism has widened some cracks in the Alliance and may point to a new kind of NATO. It could evolve into more of a collective-security, rather than a collective-defense organization, the article suggested.

Noting that "a long number—a 48 with nine zeros—marks the growing distance between the two coasts of the Atlantic," German weekly Die Zeit, Feb. 6, considered that "the question is: Can the United States, the greatest world power since Rome, do without Europe? Will Europe, of equal value but not of equal weight, do without the United States." The United States cannot, charges the newspaper, continuing: "How will it muster sanctions, embargoes, monetary flow controls, police and intelligence service work, against the ‘trio of evil ones,’ against the global privateer of terror, without international allies? Precisely in the non-military defensive struggle, the highly developed Europe is top of the line among coalition partners. In dealing with Iraq, isn’t lasting pressure and the withholding of technology a cheaper and better way than war? If North Korea becomes a target, China has to be included. And Europe? The Old Continent has recently had a different problem than the plain question of ‘with, without or against the United States?’ Anyone who wants to be a player in world politics today requires a much larger pile of military chips than Europe can muster…. When Europe has more power, it will be able to apply more power in the world and on the United States, this colossus that inspires fear, envy and admiration to the Europeans. But in the 21^st century, is only secondarily a question of precision munitions and drones. It comes from an economy that creates more value, and a culture that radiates outwardly. Incidentally, that is the way not only to pay for military transport aircraft and satellites, but also t win elections."

"America overestimates its war. Iraq or terror nests: solo attempts are no solution. Washington needs NATO," says a commentary in Die Welt. Looking at President Bush’s "axis of evil" remarks, the newspaper opines that one of the reasons why the Americans will not attack Iraq is that rift within the anti-terrorism coalition would reach NATO, "which is far more important to them than they currently admit." NATO is the institutional backing of the United States in Europe. Without the Alliance, the American unilateralism would change in political isolation, stresses the newspaper, adding: "There are several reasons for the trans-Atlantic disturbances. The military weakness of the Europeans and the technology gap compared to the U.S. leave deep traces. If one takes a closer look it becomes obvious that the latter are the result of the lost insight into the conflictive nature of political life—result of the devastating idealistic philosophy which makes Europeans believe they could choose reality. This picture has accompanied NATO since 1949, but it was first covered by the provocation of the Soviet Union, later by the formalization of the conflict including arms control. After the Cold War, the ailment appeared in a different form in Europe: as the expectation of excessive peace dividends…. The Balkans gave the ironical answer. After failed European solo attempts, NATO cooperation was on the verge of failure—there were arguments on target planning, compromises of secrets, mishaps. Sept. 11 then led to an open crisis. It is true that the U.S. mobilized NATO, but based their actions on a coalition of their own choice. NATO with all the military trained minds of its Military Committee remained unused. American unilateralism triumphed. The tragedy lies in the exaggerated strategic idea of being capable of leading a world against terrorism, similar to the destruction of fixed, thus tangible, totalitarian systems in Europe in the past. An unlimited anti-terrorism war that wanders from state to state, from pirates’ nest to pirates’ nest, does not have the lasting support of a coalition of interests. The Americans will need some time and some experience to gain this insight. This is the chance for the Atlantic alliance. If the Europeans are ready to catch up in military and technological terms, and to expand the radius of operations, the United States will eventually return to the firm ground."

• On his two-day visit to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, NATO Secretary General praised the success of the peace deal, urged the government to enact it fully and said that the Alliance would be "glad" to prolong the mandate of the contingent in the country, AP wrote. Lord Robertson further reportedly stressed that the topic of his discussion with President Trajkovski, Prime Minister Georgievski and other top officials would be the passing of the amnesty law, on which he would be pressing the Government, and which he linked to international financial aid for the country, as well as its aspirations for future membership in NATO and EU.

• According to Reuters, Erkki Tuomioja, the foreign minister of EU member Finland, said Friday the EU should not take over peacekeeping work in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from NATO. "We know Macedonians (sic) themselves would prefer NATO operations continuing," he reportedly said in a Finnish daily, adding: "In my opinion, it is the wrong way of thinking if the only goal is to get the EU its own (military) operations. What extra values would it bring."