Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

31 March 2003

ESDP

• AP reports NATO Secretary General Robertson and EU foreign policy chief Solana oversaw Monday the handover from NATO to the EU of the peacekeeping mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. “As NATO hands over the mission to the European Union, a new chapter in European security has opened. By taking on its first military mission, the EU is demonstrating that its project of a European security and defense policy has come of age,” the dispatch quotes Lord Robertson saying and adding: “The EU will continue to do the job NATO started, and NATO will stay engaged in support of the EU-led force and as an adviser in security matters.”

The EU’s takeover of the peacekeeping mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is generating high interest. Media generally note that the operation, codenamed Operation Concordia, will be under the command of DSACEUR, Adm. Feist. They explain that this follows arrangements between the EU and NATO over the EU’s use of NATO assets. The mission is seen as an important test for ESDP.
La Libre Belgique, which highlights the links between the EU operation and NATO, quotes Adm. Feith saying: “This is a unique situation. Now at SHAPE headquarters, you can see not only NATO officers but also typical EU officers such as Swedish or Finn officers.”
The Guardian observes that the launch of Operation Concordia is tiny in scope and limited to six months, but it is an important test-bed for future, more complex peacekeeping and humanitarian operations for the EU’s embryonic rapid reaction force. Noting that the mission is also a model for burden-sharing with the United States, the article stresses that “the EU is gradually taking over the main responsibility for stabilizing and rebuilding the Balkans.” The article observes that “the force of 300 lightly armed peacekeepers drawn from 27 nations, known as EU-For, will be under the command of German Adm. Rainer Feist, who is also DSACEUR.” It recalls that “painstaking arrangements” have been worked out between the EU and NATO giving the Europeans access to the Alliance’s military planning and assets, which will be valid for all future EU operations.
The EU passes another symbolic landmark on Monday with the launch of its first military mission. Known as Operation Concordia, it is putting flesh on the bones of the EU’s ambitions to create a viable European defense identity, reported the BBC World Service. The program, which noted that the EU already has its eyes on SFOR, quoted officials saying future missions could take them to Africa or the Caucasus, once the EU’s new rapid reaction force is up and running. AFP carries similar information, highlighting that the operation is part of a wider strategy.
Operation Concordia will test European security policy, says the Financial Times, stressing that it is part of ESDP, which is still trying to overcome crucial shortfalls in military capabilities ahead of plans to launch a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force by the middle of this year. “Despite unanimity among the 15 member states for the mission, it coincides with one of the worst crises for Europe’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In contrast to ESDP, CFSP has been paralyzed on the subject of Iraq, with the big EU countries deeply divided over the issue,” adds the newspaper. It stresses that member states, too, have been at odds in the Convention on the Future of Europe over how far they should develop a more integrated defense policy that would inevitably redefine Europe’s links with NATO. In this context, the newspaper continues, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia mission, however, small, could be a litmus test for other operations, particularly peacekeeping in Bosnia, which the EU hopes to take over next year.

ISAF

• In an interview with Deutschlandfunk, March 30, Defense Minister Struck viewed calls, particularly from Germany, for ISAF’s leadership to be placed under NATO command when the current German-Dutch mandate expires. Acknowledging that France and Belgium had expressed reservations on the issue, Struck said: “If we do not succeed in overcoming (these reservations), then we will in practice still have NATO taking on a major responsibility. What this will concern is matters of the capabilities of military headquarters staff that NATO has, concerning force generation, in other words who provides assistance, which troops come from which country, and this also applies to telecommunications capabilities possessed by NATO…. What matters to me is the outcome, not the question of whether there is necessarily a NATO flag flying in Kabul.”

Against the background of divisions over Iraq, commentators continue to focus on the future of NATO and the transatlantic relationship.
The New York Times, March 30, stressed that at this new historical pivot point, “we’re still dealing with a bipolar world, only the divide this time is no longer East versus West, but the World of Order versus the World of Disorder.” But, said the article, “here’s the surprise: the key instrument which the World of Order will try to deal with threats from the World of Disorder will still be NATO.” The article added: “NATO will continue to be based in Europe, but its primary theaters of operations will be the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly the Arab-Israel frontier. If NATO’s leadership of ISAF is approved, for the first time NATO will be operating outside Europe, in the heart of the Moslem world. France is fighting this idea…. But many key NATO members favor the idea, and what’s really interesting is that the Russians have said they would consider sending a platoon as well, under the NATO-Russia partnership. Even the Chinese have winked their approval. Both of these big powers feel threatened by the disorder coming from parts of central Asia and the Middle East…. What the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan is ‘internationalizing’ the nation-building process there, because simply, it cannot pull it off alone…. Eventually, it will have to do the same in Iraq. Nation-building in Iraq can’t be done by the UN. It can’t be done by a committee. So what we will eventually need in Iraq is a credible peacekeeping force that is multilateral, legitimate and still led by the U.S. That will bring us back to NATO, possibly in partnership with some Arab and Moslem armies. This is not your grandfather’s NATO anymore. That NATO patrolled the German-Soviet frontier. This one will be patrolling Kabul and Baghdad.”

In a commentary in the Wall Street Journal, Ronald Asmus, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a former deputy assistant U.S. secretary of state, stresses the need for “serious attempts by both sides of the Atlantic to repair the rift in transatlantic relations.”
The Bush administration should start thinking now about the day after in relations with France and Russia, Asmus writes, adding: Once victory in Iraq is clear, President Bush should make clear his desire to rebuild this relationship. The president is scheduled to travel to Europe and Russia in just over two months, including for a G-8 summit in France. NATO foreign ministers meet in Spain in early June and a U.S.-EU summit takes place in Washington shortly thereafter. These meetings can set the stage for reconciliation. Repairing relations with core allies is essential if we are to halt the marginalization of NATO and if the EU integration is to move forward. Former President Truman once remarked that the accomplishment he was most proud of was the creation of the Atlantic Alliance and the transformation of former foes into allies. Truman would be aghast if he could see the damage done in recent weeks and months to the trans-Atlantic relationship today. It would be the ultimate indictment of leaders on both sides of the Atlantic if the need to deal with Saddam undoes Truman’s greatest legacy.”
The Los Angeles Times writes meanwhile that “the battle of Iraq is over. The battle of Europe has began.” According to the newspaper, the Bush administration faces two big jobs to keep the battle of Europe from flaring up further. First, it must reward its friends. The leaders who braved public opinion to support the United States in its hour of need should be able to show their fellow citizens the value of good relations with Washington. Second, the Bush administration must rebuild its relationship with Germany. That will involve some nose-holding on both sides. “U.S.-German relations remain today what they have been for 50 years—the cornerstone of the Western alliance. Fix that relationship and the rest falls into place,” the daily adds.