Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

30 January 2003

NATO

• According to Reuters, a Turkish diplomat said in Brussels Thursday Turkey plans to appeal directly to its allies to help defend it in the event of a U.S.-led war against Iraq in a move to break deadlock at NATO over indirect military support for a war. “I don’t think we’ll wait too long. It may be in a day or two, but I expect we would wait until early next week,” the diplomat, who asked not to be named, reportedly said. He added that Ankara was now considering putting forward the same package of measures, but specifically as a request for protection against attack by its neighbor. “What we’re going to do is hold the Alliance to a round of consultations under Article IV,” he said, adding: “At the end of that we will put a request on the table. It will be the same as the one on the table now, but it will have a different nature to it. Some countries still see the package as a U.S. one, they see it as supporting the United States, but if it comes from Turkey, maybe they wouldn’t see it as such.” The dispatch adds that another diplomat said a formal request from Turkey for solidarity would raise the stakes to a much higher level. “You can mess around with the Americans over something not central to the Alliance such as an attack on Iraq, but defending members is central to the Alliance,” the diplomat reportedly said. Diplomats were also quoted saying Ankara would need to proceed cautiously because continued refusal after a formal request from Turkey for support could seriously dent NATO’s credibility. “The Turks know it would be catastrophic if they invoked Article IV and it wasn’t responded to. Article IV puts you into things which are obligations: there’s a guaranteed train wreck if it doesn’t work,” the diplomats reportedly warned. The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 29, quoted unidentified NATO officials saying that as NATO continues to delay preparations for war against Iraq, Turkey may soon decide to nudge the Alliance into action by asking for its help in defending Turkey’s territory against Iraq’s retaliatory strikes. The newspaper noted that such a decision would increase political pressure on NATO to begin drawing up and implementing contingency plans for a U.S.-led war. If Turkey decides to formally ask for NATO’s help, the Alliance will find it much more difficult to remain on the sidelines and delay military planning, the daily noted and explained: The mechanism for such a request is contained in Article IV of the Alliance’s founding Washington Treaty which says that NATO countries “will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of (the Alliance’s members) is threatened.” In another development, the Financial Times reports Turkey’s armed forces said Wednesday they were sending military equipment and supplies to the eastern part of the country in preparation for a possible U.S.-led military attack against Iraq. The decision was the first concrete sign that Turkey, may be resigned to war, the newspaper comments. It adds, however, that in a statement the Turkish Army General Staff stressed that the decision did not mean a military operation was imminent or that Turkey would participate in it. A related article in The Guardian writes that the Army’s General Staff’s statement, signaled the quickening pace of military preparations in the region even though Ankara has not yet decided whether to allow U.S. forces to be deployed at Turkish bases.

Media focus on a joint letter by the heads of eight European states--Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic—in which they declared their solidarity with the United States in its campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein. The joint declaration, published in 12 European newspapers, is generally seen as rebuff to France and Germany. Media also consider that the declaration has put to light Europe’s divisions over the handling of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
While the declaration does not outline new positions for the signers, it sets down a public marker on behalf of the United States in an increasingly heated debate over its use of power. Now it will be harder for Germany, which takes over the chairmanship of the UN Security Council next month, and France to say that they are speaking for Europe as the showdown with Iraq hits its crucial phrase, writes the Wall Street Journal.
In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany, writes The Times, the declaration lays bare Europe’s divisions.
Divisions within the EU over how to handle the Iraqi regime have been blown wide open with the letter by the eight European leaders, comments AFP.

GERMANY-IRAQ

Leading German media echo a report in Berliner Zeitung which claim that according to legal experts, U.S. overflights in case of a war against Iraq without UN mandate would require the approval of the German government.
Under the title, “Berlin might stop U.S. jets,” Berliner Zeitung recalls that at the NATO summit in Prague, Chancellor Schroeder promised to give the United States free rein as regards the use of its bases in Germany. It stresses, however, that legal experts in the Bundestag hold a different view. A legal opinion by the parliamentary Scientific Service reportedly argues that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and relevant additional agreements only provide for the United States being automatically granted overflight rights and the right to use facilities for normal training purposes, or if the mutual defense clause is invoked. In the event of an Iraq war without a UN mandate, however, this would not be a case of mutual defense. In a second legal opinion, adds the newspaper, the Scientific Service comes to the conclusion that the existing UN resolutions do not provide “sufficient foundation for the legitimation of a future military action against Iraq” and that another Security Council resolution will be necessary.

BALKANS

• AP reports NATO-led troops Thursday transferred a Bosnian Moslem, who has been held at their base since October as a terrorist suspect, to the local authorities in Bosnia. The dispatch recalls that Sabahudin Fijuljanin was detained by U.S. troops based in Tuzla first for allegedly spying on their base and possession of weapons, which is illegal in Bosnia as well as for having links to Al Qaeda. It notes that the individual never admitted he had those links and SFOR never presented any evidence and never laid charges against him. His extended detention prompted human rights groups to accuse SFOR of violating Fijuljanin’s rights by keeping him in custody without charge, stresses the report. A related AFP dispatch quotes an SFOR press release saying “SFOR has now reached a point in its investigation that can accommodate transfer of Fijuljanin” to the authorities of the Moslem-Croat half of Bosnia. His handover “does not diminish our position that he is a threat” to SFOR personnel and a “safe environment in the country,” SFOR reportedly added, stressing that local authorities were to continue the investigation.