Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

06 February 2003

NATO

Focus is shifting to a NAC meeting expected to discuss measures to protect Turkey in case of a U.S.-led war against Iraq in the wake of U.S. Secretary of State Powell's address to the UN Security Council.
The Financial Times quotes diplomats saying that even if the Alliance were to reach an agreement on Thursday, much damage had already been done. The deadlock on reaching a common position had damaged NATO’s reputation in U.S. eyes and had harmed the Alliance, the diplomats reportedly said. The newspaper also quotes Steven Everts, a defense expert at London’s Center for European Reform, saying: “This time Washington cannot be blamed for making NATO irrelevant…. It will be the Europeans themselves … who will be responsible for robbing NATO of any influence, even though helping Turkey is a treaty obligation.” Meanwhile, German foreign policy expert Klaus-Dieter Schwarz is quoted charging: “The paradox now is that with the behavior of Germany and France, NATO has completely boxed itself into a corner. It will confirm the view by some in the (U.S.) administration that there is little need to listen to the Europeans.”
NATO faced a risk of continued deadlock Thursday over measures to protect Turkey in the first test of allied reaction to Secretary of State Powell’s indictment of Baghdad, says a related Reuters dispatch. Belgian Defense Minister Flahaut, whose country has backed France and Germany in blocking a decision at the Alliance, told Belgian radio that Powell’s statement had made no difference to the debate, notes the dispatch, quoting Flahaut saying: “I think it would be right for NATO to continue today to postpone a decision and not seek to provoke things.” According to the dispatch, diplomats said the initial U.S. request for a wide range of support had been narrowed down to a minimum number of measures focusing on the defense of Turkey. The ambassadors would reportedly be asked to authorize allied military authorities to begin planning to send air defense missiles and early warning aircraft to Turkey. The diplomats reportedly indicated, however, that actual deployment would require a further decision. One unidentified NATO diplomat is quoted saying the most likely outcome of the NAC meeting was either a continued logjam or an inconclusive discussion with a decision to meet again Friday.

IRAQ

Iraq appears to be under pressure to respond to charges, expressed by Secretary of State Powell in his UN address, that it is defying UN demands to disarm.
According to AP, the UN’s chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed El Baradei, said in London Thursday that Iraq needs to show “drastic change” in cooperating with UN weapons inspectors. “Iraq is not cooperating fully, they need to show drastic change in terms of cooperation,” he reportedly told a joint news conference with chief weapons inspector Hans Blix after a briefing to Prime Minister Blair. According to the dispatch, Blix also said Iraqi officials were not cooperating fully and warned: “We hope at this late hour they will come to a positive response. If they do not, our reports next Friday, will not be what we would like them to be.”
French Foreign Minister de Villepin also stressed Thursday that Baghdad must “respond rapidly to the demands of the international community.” According to AP, in an interview with French radio, he urged Iraq to quickly answer charges that it possesses weapons of mass destruction and indicated time was running out for Baghdad to cooperate with weapons inspectors. “We ask Saddam Hussein to respond rapidly to the demands of the international community,” he reportedly said, adding: “There is an Iraqi risk and we are waiting for Iraq to provide clear responses about the substance (of its alleged weapons), and in particular on chemical and biological weapons.” While reiterating France’s view that force can only be a last resort, he reportedly stressed that “we do not exclude any possibility, including that of force.”
Earlier, AP observed that the U.S. case against Saddam Hussein was entering a critical 10-day period in which top inspectors would visit Baghdad and make a key report to the UN Security Council. Stressing that their comments could help decide whether there will be war in Iraq, the dispatch quoted Security Council diplomats saying they would wait for Blix and El Baradei to present their report on Feb. 14 before deciding on next steps, including a possible new resolution, because its focus would almost certainly depend on their assessments of Iraq’s cooperation. A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was also quoted saying the next 24 to 36 hours would be critical as Powell determines whether allies are willing to support a second resolution.
The BBC World Service carried is UN correspondent saying that Powell was reported to be content to let the diplomatic process rest until Blix reports back to the Security Council next week. The correspondent remarked that the Bush administration is claiming that some Council members expressed more support privately than they did in public.
In Germany, reactions to Powell’s address appear to be mixed. According to Deutschewelle, members of Chancellor Schroeder’s coalition said Powell’s evidence on Iraq was not decisive and UN inspections in Iraq should continue. Opposition Conservative CDU chief Angela Merkel was quoted saying, however, that Iraq was without doubt a threat. Another senior CDU figure, Wolfgang Schaeuble, reportedly said Iraq must be intimidated so that weapons of mass destruction did not fall into the hands of terrorists.
A commentary in Die Welt insists that the German government, and all Germans, must be clear about one thing: the issue is no longer just a matter of the Iraqi threat. It also involves the consequences which a “count us out” policy would bring. The article warns against alienating Germany from its most important allies, which the article believes, would cause great harm to the western alliance structure.
The International Herald Tribune writes meanwhile that Washington’s effort at documenting Iraq as a threat to humanity clearly puts America’s friends and doubters in circumstances like those President Bush described for them after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States: “You’re either with us or against us.”

Media also focus on reports that Wednesday, 10 East European countries--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia--issued a strong statement of support to the United States. Several media note that European support for Washington’s stand is growing as central and eastern European nations emerge as serious diplomatic partners, shifting the balance of power in Europe toward a European continent less inclined to see America with suspicion.
The Daily Telegraph observes that virtually the whole of eastern and central Europe, much of the Balkans, the Mediterranean belt of Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as Britain and Denmark are now firmly in the American camp. More importantly, the newspaper stresses, when the EU expands eastward next year, those states will represent a majority—14 out of the 25 members, including four of the “big six” powers. Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, is quoted saying: “This confirms France’s worst nightmare—that EU enlargement would turn out to be a strategic disaster because the new countries are Atlanticist, Anglophone, relatively free-trade, and not natural allies of France.”
In a similar vein, the Wall Street Journal writes that the number of countries pledging their support for a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime grows by the day. “America’s European allies are leading the way. The reports of the death of the trans-Atlantic relationship were always exaggerated. The majority of western European countries remain committed to a vital security link with the U.S,” the newspaper notes. But, it adds, the debate over Iraq highlights a new wrinkle in Europe: the emergence of the former Warsaw Pact countries as serious diplomatic players The Easterners are shifting the balance of power on the continent away from the traditional Franco-German condominium. Clearly the shift is toward a Europe less inclined to view America with suspicion or resentment. “The Cold War may be history. But that experience has conditioned the new democracies of the East to look to the U.S. for leadership in meeting the moral and security challenges of the 21st century,” concludes the newspaper.
Against this background the International Herald Tribune writes that in recent weeks, as rifts between European countries have widened, some officials in Brussels have chided the future Eastern European members of the EU for their pro-U.S. stands. Poland, for one, has been criticized for deciding to purchase F-16 fighters instead of European-made fighter jets. Analysts say Eastern Europeans have a special relationship with the United States partly because they are appreciative of the U.S. role in opposing the former Soviet Union, adds the article.