Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

17 February 2003

IRAQ

• In the wake of a NATO agreement on Turkey’s defense, focus has shifted to an EU summit expected to discuss divisions over a possible war against Iraq. The BBC World Service observed that the talks are involving many of the same countries which disagreed sharply over whether NATO should sent military aid to Turkey in advance of any war. Noting that no one believes that any leader will have shifted stance on Iraq, a correspondent warned that at some point, countries will have to decide “whether and how they can salvage the broken dream of a common European foreign policy.”
  
  
• According to Reuters, the speaker of the Turkish Assembly announced Monday that the Turkish government will not ask Parliament to consider on Tuesday an urgent U.S. request to station troops on Turkish soil ahead of a possible war against Iraq. Parliament speaker Bulent Arinc reportedly told a news conference that Turkey must assess how to handle the damage war might cause its fragile economy, recovering from deep recession. He said Ankara strongly favored a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis. The dispatch adds that earlier, Prime Minister Gul said it would be difficult to persuade Parliament, where his party holds a large majority, without agreement with Washignton on contingency plans for the economic, political and military consequences of an attack.

NATO’s agreement on Turkey’s defense generates prominent interest. The fact that the decision was made in the framework of the Defense Planning Committee (DPC), in which France does not sit, is prompting several media to ponder whether there is a need to review the mechanism of NATO’s decision-making process.
Few are under any illusion that the crisis, one of the worst in NATO’s history, has called into question the basic method by which NATO takes its decisions, claims AFP. The French news agency speculates that the breakthrough is bound to renew questions about NATO’s strict consensus-driven decision-making process. It notes, however, that during the crisis, a NATO spokesman repeatedly rebuffed questions about whether NATO should amend its requirement for unanimity, in particular as it prepares to welcome seven more members next year.
Last night’s consensus was made possible after “a deliberate ploy” to exclude France from the decision-making by convening a meeting of the DPC, writes The Times and comments: “Ironically, most of the big NATO decision have been taken by the NAC rather than the DPC in recent years, as a result of the wish to involve the French after hints in 1994 that the country might return to the Alliance’s integrated military structure.”
Huge efforts have been made to “re-invent” NATO for the post-Twin Towers world. But decisions will still have to be taken by consensus, soon of 26, stresses The Guardian. The newspaper considers that “Alliance collegiality has taken a hard knock in an organization where ambassadors normally iron out differences over a good lunch and privately complain about their instructions from capitals.” But, insisting that “NATO’s past is not yet another country,” the article continues: “Whether the current damage is irreparable or just very serious, its effects will be felt for a long time. Even those who believe that NATO is past its sell-by date must know that Europe—old or new—is still incapable of managing without America….. Whoever succeeds Lord Robertson faces an unenviable task.”
NATO reaches an agreement without France highlights Paris’ Le Monde, explaining that “the agreement was reached with France’s tacit agreement, during a DPC meeting, in which France does not sit.” Related articles in the Financial Times and the Washington Post also highlight that the impasse at NATO headquarters was broken when the issue was taken to the DPC.

Against the background of huge anti-war demonstrations worldwide, several media observe that countries must chose between NATO and a public opinion that is increasingly opposed to war.
Typifying this view, the New York Times writes: “ Several countries in Europe face a painful quandary: choosing between NATO, their main source of security for more than half a century, and a public opinion that is increasingly opposed to a war.”
The Wall Street Journal writes meanwhile that months of painstaking efforts by Secretary of State Powell to win international consensus for military action against Iraq have been complicated by a growing resentment over what many foreign diplomats regard as the Bush administration’s heavy-handed tactics over the past two years.

In an interview with Time, French President Chirac tells of his objection to war against Iraq. “A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens…. I’m against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists,” Chirac says. Stressing that France is not ducking its military responsibilities to the United States, its oldest ally, Chirac notes: “France is not a pacifist country. We currently have more troops in the Balkans than the Americans. France is obviously not anti-American. It’s a true friend of the United States and always has been, It is not France’s role to support dictatorial regimes in Iraq or anywhere else. Nor do we have any differences over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. For that matter, if Saddam Hussein would only vanish, it would without a doubt be the biggest favor he could do for his people and for the world. But we think this goal can be reached without starting a war.”