Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

18 March 2003

GEN. JONES-VISIT TO GERMANY

Suggestions by Defense Minister Struck Monday, after talks with Gen. Jones, that Germany does not expect the United States to significantly reduce the number of its soldiers based in Germany in the near future are noted by major wire services.
Defense Minister Struck said Monday he was confident that the United States would not move its soldiers out of the country, writes Reuters. “Gen. Jones said the Pentagon is reviewing conceptually, under cost aspects, the status of U.S. troops in Europe,” the dispatch quotes Struck saying, and adding that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had given him a similar assurance over the U.S. troops at a meeting in Munich last month. Struck reportedly stressed that the U.S. soldiers stationed in Germany were welcome and vital for both countries. “The presence of the American army in many parts of Germany has special significance, not only for military reasons but also for Germany itself…. The American soldiers are our friends and I hope it stays that way,” he added. The dispatch notes that Gen. Jones did not comment on the issue in his brief remarks with Struck. A related AP dispatch reports that Gen. Jones, who praised “the tremendous contribution that German forces are making throughout the world today,” has stressed that the base overhaul plan is not meant to punish Berlin for its refusal to back a war with Iraq.
AFP quotes Gen. Jones saying that, if called upon, the Alliance was ready to play a role in leading ISAF. If the Alliance was needed in a leadership role within ISAF, he reportedly said, “I am quite sure that NATO assets could be used, and could be used effectively.” The dispatch recalls that Berlin has been urging NATO to take over ISAF’s leadership role at the end of the current mandate in August.

IRAQ

• According to AP, NATO Secretary General Robertson told reporters in Brussels Tuesday the choice of peace or war in Iraq now lies with Saddam Hussein. NATO officials said no special meetings had yet been scheduled to discuss President Bush’s ultimatum. However, they expected that the NAC would hold emergency talks if war breaks out, adds the dispatch, quoting Lord Robertson saying: “This organization remains the prime trans-Atlantic forum for exchanging information or ideas.”
  
  
• AFP reports SFOR, including U.S. and British troops, continued business as usual Tuesday, saying Washington’s ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not affecting their mission. “We maintain a constant vigilant watch over the security situation here and we react accordingly to what we observe. There is no change in that,” the dispatch quotes an SFOR spokesman saying.
  
  
• According to AP, the Berlin government has confirmed that it would stick to pledges made last November to allow the United States overflight rights and use of their bases in Germany in the event of war, as well as allowing German soldiers to man NATO’s AWACS over the territory of Turkey. “The promise remains valid. This was a political decision that is in harmony with the NATO statutes,” a government spokesman reportedly said.

Belgian media report that Prime Minister Verhofstadt has rebuked Foreign Minister Michel and Defense Minister Flahaut after they declared in a televised program Sunday that if the United States goes to war against Iraq without UN backing, Belgium will deny the United States use of its territory for military transports as well as overflight rights for planes on their way to Iraq.
The government’s position is that bilateral decisions with the United States over the transit of U.S. troops must be separated from the government’s opposition to war, writes De Standaard. On March 9, Verhofstadt stressed in a televised interview that in case of unilateral British-American action, the transit of troops through Belgian territory would go on normally, adds the newspaper. Noting that the remarks by Flahaut and Michel also caused friction abroad, the newspaper continues: “The German government spoke of ‘a bridge too far.’ An American official asked why Belgium still participated in NATO’s Defense Planning Committee, since ‘apparently, it is interested neither in defense nor planning.’” In a subsequent interview with VRT television, Michel acknowledged that Belgium’s position is in line with that of France and Germany. The program recalled that President Chirac has made it clear that the United States could use France’s airspace.
De Standaard on line claims meanwhile that for a week and a half now, no U.S. ship has gone through the port of Antwerp to collect military equipment. According to circles at the harbor, says the report, the United States had anticipated the political situation in Belgium. “It appears likely that further transports will take place via Rotterdam or Bremerhaven. The U.S. attitude is believed to be the consequences of political declarations in Belgium.”

In the wake of President Bush’s ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, focus is again shifting to the impact of the U.S. strategy on international organizations and transatlantic relations.
In a contribution to the International Herald Tribune, Christoph Bertram, director of the Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin and Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic research in Paris, observe that the conflict over Iraq is revealing itself as the catalyst of fundamental changes—not in the Middle East—but in the transatlantic relationship. They write: “Both Europe and America will have to seek to limit the damage done by their current dissent…. The European rift over Iraq has demonstrated that a European Union of 25 member states will not unite on any policy issue where the United States dissents. If Europe wants to have political weight it needs to form a core group of countries determined to meld policies and means. This idea … is now the only idea that can get Europe out of its trans-Atlantic predicament. The core of the core group has to be the two countries whose unity has been the indispensable condition of European unity, France and Germany. But both countries will have to go much further in integrating their policies and resources, and they have to include others. Going further in integrating policies and resources will require steps that cannot be undone, such as merging the air forces of both countries. Including others will require both governments to end their mindless practice of neglect of and lack of respect for the smaller members of the EU…. Restoring the transatlantic relationship is no longer a matter or repairing damage and then acting as if nothing had changed. The United States has ended the old relationship. It can be reborn only if Europe is reborn.”
The Wall Street Journal opines meanwhile that while President Bush’s effort to push diplomacy to the limit before attacking Iraq subjected the key multilateral institutions born out of World War II to a stress test, “NATO isn’t as troubled as it might seem.” Partly basing this observation on the fact that NATO was able to resort to the DPC to approve military help to Turkey, the newspaper considers that NATO already has the flexibility to accommodate coalitions of the willing. “NATO is going through changes to accommodate its enlarged membership, but its usefulness in focusing the military power of the United States and its allies on trouble spots is by no means out of date…. After the war, the world will change, perhaps for the better. But the edifices erected in years past will still be around,” the newspaper concludes.