Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

10 April 2003

NATO

• Warsaw’s PAP, April 9, quoted Deputy Defense Minister Zemke saying Wednesday that the planned departure of a group of Polish soldiers to Turkey has been put off. “We are putting off (the departure) as there is no such need. There is no threat in Turkey as we have a breakthrough in the situation in Iraq, this is how we see it,” Zemke reportedly said. The dispatch recalled that earlier Turkey appealed to NATO for backing in light of the Iraq conflict.

IRAQ

• The Washington Post notes that, according to Bush administration officials, U.S. forces in Iraq have neither the troops nor the inclination to police neighborhoods or deter looters in the next few days. The article recalls, however, that before the war, U.S. officials raised with NATO the possibility of Alliance troops assisting in post-war security operations in Iraq. It adds: “Secretary of State Powell discussed the matter again last week with NATO Secretary General Robertson during a stop in Brussels…. Sen. Warner…, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, backed the idea of NATO involvement this week and plans to raise it today with senior Pentagon officials during a hearing on post-war Iraq.”
  
  
• According to Athens’ I Kathimerini, sources said Wednesday that the Greek coast guard has been placed on high alert following a warning from U.S. authorities that three fuel tankers believed to have sailed from a Middle Eastern port with top Iraqi government officials on board could be heading for Greek waters. The newspaper also quotes coast guard sources saying air and sea patrols have been stepped up in response to the U.S. tanker tip-off. “Coast guard vessels, including patrol boats equipped with state-of-the-art electronic tracking devices and manned with special forces have already set off for Crete from the eastern Aegean. The coast guard is also in close cooperation with the Greek Navy and NATO officials,” the newspaper claims.
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal considers that victory in Iraq promises to offer a big boost to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s mission to transform how the U.S. military fights, what it buys and where it goes. Suggesting that the success of the U.S. strategy in Iraq, with the emphasis on speed, is likely to have immediate consequences, the article adds: Instead of concentrating ground forces in Germany and Korea, Pentagon planners are likely to spread them around so they can be deployed quickly to hotspots. Rumsfeld also is likely to push the Army and Marine Corps to invest more in lighter, more lethal ground forces that can be airlifted to combat zones.

The perception that the war in Iraq is close to an end is shifting the focus to transatlantic relations and fueling calls in Europe for a strengthening of ESDP.
Stuttgarter Zeitung quotes Defense Minister Struck saying in an interview that the war in Iraq and the disagreement among European states have strengthened the idea of a common European army. Stressing, however, that “we must proceed step by step,” Struck reportedly added: “This means, at first, the establishment of a European Rapid Reaction Force. This will be a first, small section of a future European army. It should comprise about 60,000 soldiers—with 30,000 provided by Germany alone. It will be effective by the end of this year. The formal resolution for it will be passed in June, at a defense ministers’ conference in Athens. As of the beginning of 2004, this Rapid Reaction Force would then be able to fulfill missions. As far as military spending is concerned, Europe will never be at eye level with the United States…. What is important is not the quantity but the quality. For Europe, this means: on a Europe-wide basis, we must be able to create certain capabilities, which are needed not only for the security of Europe, but for an international security policy—in addition to the tool of NATO, which will remain indispensable for many years to come.”
Die Welt asserts meanwhile that “the German government is planning to expand ESDP to a European Defense Union (EDU), which could enter in competition with NATO.” The newspaper claims it has obtained information indicating that Chancellor Schroeder wants to suggest a mutual assistance obligation for EDU members at a special meeting with France, Belgium and Luxembourg on April 29.
In a contribution to Liberation, April 9, former French Defense Minister Quiles argues that the war in Iraq has shown that the EU countries can only influence world developments if they achieve political unity and strengthen their military. He explains: The United States has reduced its presence on our continent by 350,000 service personnel since 1991. Its disengagement is a reality. Europe must therefore provide for its own security. Among other things, the EU has taken over from NATO in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and plans to do so in Bosnia-Herzegovina soon. The United States does not, however, want to relinquish its political control over Europe’s defense. It expects the Europeans to align themselves with Washington’s positions and it is unwilling to treat them as real allies, with whom it would compare views in order to establish a common policy. Europe’s military weaknesses and differences between EU members reinforce this attitude. The situation is all the more worrying in as much as NATO is in a state of crisis. The Europeans can no longer regard it as the sole and ultimate guarantor of their security. The nature of our relations with the United States—which, however, remain indispensable—unquestionably needs to be redefined. Europeans must agree on the objectives of our defense. We need to draw up a “white paper” together, setting out the principles of European defense and its methods, taking particular account of the new threats. A common doctrine must be matched by common forces, intelligence capabilities, and command systems. Only a genuine European army can guarantee us the level of security we need, at an acceptable cost. This army must rest on a strong and independent industrial and technological base. A European armaments agency must take charge of equipping it.
In Le Soir, Patrick Cox, President of the European Parliament, stresses that those who believe in the lasting value of the transatlantic relationship cannot ignore differences between Europe and the United States. Against this background, he insists that the time has come for the EU to work toward reinforcing its complementarity with the United States in the field of defense.
In the Financial Times, Charles Kupchan, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations writes meanwhile that with an end to the war in sight, Americans and Europeans will inevitably begin asking how to repair the transatlantic bond. He opines, however, that the diplomatic divide that has opened between the United States and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic Alliance to a definitive end. “The Atlantic Alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad. Perhaps the sad truth will awaken U.S. leaders to their strategic missteps, and at the same time impress on Europe’s leaders the urgent need for a deeper union. If so, the seeds of a more mature and balanced Atlantic order may also lies in Baghdad’s ruins,” Kupchan argues.