Military

NATO-PRAGUE SUMMIT

¨         In a live broadcast, CNN carried NATO Secretary General Robertson announcing at the opening session of the two-day Prague summit that NATO heads of state and government had formally invited seven new countries to join the Alliance: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.  Electronic media highlighted that the historic decision extended NATO's sphere of influence beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union. They generally expected that the new countries would formally join the Alliance in May 2004.   

In a historic eastward shift, NATO expanded its membership beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union Thursday amid a makeover designed to answer new threats of global terrorism, says AP.  Barely a decade since they regained independence from the Soviet Union, the new members will formally join the Alliance in May 2004 after the parliaments of the NATO member countries ratify the enlargement, it adds.  "NATO entered a new era Thursday as the former Cold War bloc opened its door in its biggest ever expansion to seven ex-communist countries, extending its sphere firmly into the former Soviet Union," writes AFP.  Alliance leaders hailed the historic decision as changing the map of Europe, adds the dispatch.  In a similar vein,  Reuters observes that the new enlargement takes the Alliance deep into the former Soviet sphere.   "The breathtaking enlargement into former Warsaw Pact territory marks the end of Cold War divisions," said CNN.  Moscow's Interfax quotes a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman saying meanwhile that Moscow is not "over-dramatizing" the situation surrounding NATO's enlargement but believes that there is no real need for it.  "It is important that this decision not push the relationship between Russia and the Alliance back from the point reached in Rome," where a decision was made to set up a special NATO body of 20, including Russia, the spokesman reportedly said and added:    "We respect the legitimate right of any state to decide, on their own, what international structure they want to be a part of.  At the same time, it is obvious to us that there is no need for NATO's enlargement in the present situation.  The threats that the.. Alliance could have opposed are a thing of the past.  This process is largely continuing by force of inertia.  We still believe that it does not add security to either NATO, the candidate countries or Russia."

Under the title, "NATO's success story," the Washington Post describes the fact that seven countries are being offered membership in NATO as "something of a marvel and cause for celebration."  All are now working democracies with free-market economies, human rights are respected, and living standards are steadily growing.  These success stories are also a testimony to the value of NATO at a time when the Alliance is being questioned on both sides of the Atlantic, says the newspaper.  To a large extent, it adds, NATO has provided the framework under which the formerly Communist nations of Europe have democratized.  The article concludes:  "Whether NATO now becomes a force for combating terrorists and rogue states and for spreading democracy beyond Europe will depend on whether the political will for a strong transatlantic partnership can be sustained, both in Washington and in Europe. Yet the power and potential of that bond ought to be evident in the two great achievements for which NATO can now be credited: first the deterrence of Soviet aggression and now the consolidation of a Europe that is peaceful and free."

¨         Electronic media further report that NATO leaders agreed Thursday to set up a Rapid Response Force and pledged to adapt military capabilities to new security threats.  They also agreed to streamline NATO's command structure.

NATO leaders agreed Thursday to set up a strike force for high-intensity warfare and pledged to rebuild military capabilities to tackle new security threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  The allies also agreed to streamline NATO's command structure, moving away from a static military posture shaped during the Cold War, writes Reuters.  According to the dispatch, each NATO nation committed itself to provide specific military equipment within defined timeframes as part of a drive to narrow the yawning gap in capability between the United States and Europe, and gear the Alliance for security challenges underlined by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.  The dispatch highlights that the Rapid Response Force, which could strike quickly when an ally is attacked by a distant foe, was proposed by the United States, apparently a vote of confidence in the Alliance after NATO became marginalized in the war on terrorism.  NATO leaders approved the creation of a 20,000-strong rapid response force and a series of other measures designed to retool the Alliance to fight terrorists or states around the world that menace the organization, says AP.  The dispatch adds that NATO leaders adopted a new military strategy that breaks from its traditional focus on Europe to deploy forces quickly against threats wherever they emerge.  They also agreed to streamline the Alliance's military structures, with a U.S. general to be appointed strategic commander for worldwide operations.  "Allies also made commitments to beef up their military hardware and narrow the gap between U.S. military might and European forces.  The Alliance also initiated a NATO missile defense study to examine how it could join the United States in setting up an international shield to intercept incoming missiles," the dispatch further says.

Relating the establishment of a NATO Rapid Response Force to ESDP, a commentary in Le Monde stresses that only the malicious perceived in the U.S. initiative an attempt to encourage greater European efforts.  But, adds the newspaper, everyone acknowledges that these will indeed be the same units, called on to serve either under the  NATO flag or under the EU flag and in fact the question is whether NATO will absorb Europe's ambition to acquire an autonomous military capability.  Against this background, the newspaper quotes Gen. James Jones, the future SACEUR, saying:  "The NATO Rapid Response Force, which would indeed need a U.S. component, and the EU force, which will act on the basis of EU missions, do not need to be two different forces.  They can be the same force oriented in different directions..  Let us hope that we will always be in tune."  The newspaper considers, however, that the creation of a NATO Rapid Response Force does not augur well for ESDP.  "Is European defense an appendage of the Alliance or an entity in its own right, complementary but autonomous?", asks the article. 

The Daily Telegraph stresses that the need to close the gap is behind the U.S. determination to force NATO into creating a new rapid reaction force:  "It is not just about giving the old Cold War alliance a new purpose, it is about forcing Europe to pay for its own defense." 

In a contribution to the Financial Times, Philippe Camus, chief executive of European Aeronautic Defense and Space company (EADS), writes that the Prague summit offers the opportunity to come up with some of the answers to the new threats which demand radically different military capabilities and responses from Europe's armed forces and defense industries. " Europe must do more for its own defense. It should be expected to play a leading role on the world stage alongside the U.S.  To do so, governments must match their good intentions with real military might. According to opinion polls, they have their people's support," Camus stresses, expressing the hope that "Prague will be regarded as a turning point."

¨         According to AFP, NATO leaders pledged in a joint statement Thursday to "take effective action" to help the UN with Iraq's complete and immediate compliance with a Security Council disarmament resolution.  The dispatch notes that a senior U.S. administration official quickly lauded the "very helpful" statement, which he said "sends a powerful statement" about the Alliance's commitment to disarm Iraq.  "This is surprisingly strong language and we are very pleased that NATO agreed to the language that they did," the official reportedly said on condition of anonymity, adding:  "This goes beyond the simple political declaration the United States has sought."

¨         AFP reports the Alliance agreed Thursday to provide support for a renewed security force in Afghanistan, its first involvement in the operation in the country.  Diplomats reportedly described the decision as a major step.  "NATO is taking a big step by agreeing to provide formal military support.  What comes next remains to be seen," one diplomat reportedly indicated.

In a news conference carried live on the NATO Internet site, NATO Secretary General Robertson stressed that decisions made by the NATO heads of state and government were indeed "decisions, not just declarations."  Regarding capabilities, he indicated that nations had signed up for projects, that dates and level of achievements had been identified.  The difference between Prague and previous decisions, he insisted, is that "we intend to provide these capabilities."  He said that details would be released in a few days.  While indicating that some nations had made specific commitments, he stressed that more important than the gross amount of money being spent on defense what how it is being spent.  The "penny has finally dropped" that we have to rebalance our capabilities, he noted, adding:  "Taking tough political decisions to reshape budgets is now underway."