• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

BALKANS

• Reuters quotes an Alliance spokesman announcing that NATO has called an emergency meeting later in the day to consider the implications of Washington’s threat to shut down UN-authorized peacekeeping missions in a row over the powers of a new global war crimes court. "It’s going to be purely information. No decisions will be taken here because there are no decisions we can make here," the spokesman reportedly said. According to the dispatch, he noted that strictly speaking, SFOR could not fall foul of the diplomatic wrangling because it does not require a UN mandate to remain in operation. Its mandate, although endorsed by a Security Council resolution, is mandated by the Dayton Accords. The spokesman reportedly acknowledged, however, that "there are a lot of people who have got different interpretations." But, he stressed, "we get our mandate out of Dayton and we will continue to do our job." The dispatch adds that a NATO official familiar with U.S. policy said that until the end of last week, Washington’s clear line was that it remained committed to NATO’s peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. It notes, however, that the same official said Monday there were "apparently changes over the weekend" and the NAC had been called "because of those ambiguities."

• In what it sees as an effort to reassure Bosnia that U.S. peacekeepers will stay in the country despite the row over the ICC, AFP quotes U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia Clifford Bond saying in a news conference in Sarajevo Monday that U.S. troops serving with SFOR will stay in Bosnia despite the row. "Our strategic commitment to the Balkans and to Bosnia remains rock solid. U.S. troops will remain in Bosnia" as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force, he reportedly stressed.

• According to AP, an EU spokesman said Monday that the UN had asked the EU to consider speeding up preparations to take charge of the international police operation in Bosnia, following a U.S. threat to bring an early halt to the mission. The spokesman reportedly said the UN had asked EU countries if such a move would be possible. He stressed, however, that bringing forward the changeover would involve some complicated planning decisions. "To advance this by half a year would be logistically quite difficult," he insisted.

• AFP reports Bosnia voiced security concerns Monday after a row between Washington and other UN member states over the new ICC put the future of UN and NATO-led missions overseeing safety in the country in doubt. Bosnian authorities were said to be carefully monitoring developments in the UN, Washington and Brussels, where the NAC was expected to meet.

Washington’s decision to veto a renewal of the UN police force in Bosnia to mark its hostility to the new International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to raise doubts about the future of SFOR. While media echo NATO’s view that SFOR does not require a UN mandate to remain in operation since it is mandated by the Dayton accords, they observe that some European nations might pull out their troops because of the lack of UN endorsement.

Although SFOR does not need a fresh UN mandate to continue, Germany, Finland and the Irish Republic cannot commit their troops without such authorization, asserts The Daily Telegraph.

While NATO has insisted that its peacekeeping mission in Bosnia will not be jeopardized by the U.S. veto as its mandate stems from the Dayton peace accord, some of the 19 NATO countries contributing to it have indicated they will withdraw their troops without one, reported the BBC World Service.

NATO

• During a recent visit to Washington, NATO Secretary General Robertson held talks with CIA Direct George Tenet about improved intelligence sharing in the war on terrorism. writes the Washington Post. Against this background, the newspaper quotes Lord Robertson saying in an interview: "There’s a lot of bilateral intelligence relationships, but not a lot of multi-lateral ones. In terms of intelligence, there is nothing like the NATO network. NATO is essentially a military organization with huge political dimensions that have been added to it. But people will exchange intelligence in a military framework that they will never trust a civil or multi-national framework to handle. So we’ve got that network there already, and it has already proven to be enormously valuable." According to the newspaper, Lord Robertson further said that NATO’s new, closer relationship with Russia would further aid the flow of intelligence aimed at countering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which has deployed cells through Europe and Chechen fighters in Afghanistan. "(President Putin) made it clear when we had the first NATO-Russia Council in Rome that this was something he saw as being a serious product of the NATO-Russia council, the exchange of intelligence, the newspaper quotes Lord Robertson saying.

 FINAL ITEM