Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

Date

IRAQ

A perception that the war in Iraq is close to an end is increasingly shifting the media’s focus to a possible post-war role for NATO.
Asked, in an interview with Le Soir, how he thought the debate over a possible NATO role in post-war Iraq was likely to develop, Lord Robertson replied that the Alliance is clearly ready to respond to a request from an international organization or a group of countries, but it is necessary that this be formulated first. “We are not going to go fishing for expeditions and problems. If the coalition thinks that we can play a role, they will knock on our door. If the member states give them a unanimous green light, we will, upon the condition of course of bringing a value added to those enterprises already underway by the international community,” Lord Robertson said. According to the newspaper, he noted that during a meeting of NATO foreign ministers last week, “a certain number of participants remarked that we have a certain expertise in matters of peacekeeping and in matters of protection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.” Lord Robertson is further quoted saying: “Formal discussion was launched, but we spoke in the hallways, in an informal matter. But let's be clear: this does not automatically signify a translation into action. Since the meeting last week, certain foreign ministers showed themselves to be very willing to task NATO, others less, but nobody was opposed. Therefore, let's first study the needs in Iraq before formally considering what we can do."
Elsewhere, Le Soir stresses NATO’s great experience in the field of peacekeeping, gained since the mid-1990s in Balkan operations, as justification for a possible role in Iraq.
Germany’s opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Chairwoman Angela Merkel told ZDF television Sunday she supports the involvement of NATO in post-war Iraq. “I find that NATO might well play a role. It could offer an opportunity for the Alliance to overcome divisions which occurred over the Iraqi conflict,” she said. She stressed, however that the U.S. armed forces would initially have the lead for securing peace in the country. She also thought that Iraq’s reconstruction should be organized “under the roof of the UN.”
The Washington Post reports that discussing post-war Iraq in a television interview Sunday, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said he had suggested to NATO Secretary General Robertson that the Alliance consider the contribution of peacekeeping forces.
Welt am Sonntag, April 13, quoted a high-ranking NATO official stressing that a role for NATO in post-war Iraq will depend on the type of agreement that will be reached with the UN. Highlighting NATO’s capabilities, the article noted: NATO could support the reconstruction in Iraq with humanitarian assistance, police forces, peace troops and air transports. Protective clothing and mobile laboratories are available for the protection of the servicemen from NBC weapons as well as trained personnel capable of disposing NBC weapons in an ecologically sound manner. NATO nations have "Explosive Ordinance Teams" that can find and destroy mines. The member nations could provide satellites, secret services and communications systems. NATO can provide medical facilities and transport means as well as coordinate the maintenance of roads, airports, bridges and conduits.
Striking a seemingly isolated pessimistic note, The Times charges that “crippled by the war, the Alliance looks set to splinter into pieces.” NATO has had a bad war and will have to fight hard if it is to play any meaningful role in the new-look security agenda created by the Bush/Blair axis, says the newspaper, adding: The war could not have come at a worst time for the organization. Having recently opened its doors to seven new members, NATO was trying to reform its structure and expand its roles, as well as build a long-term security partnership with the EU. NATO will survive, but the danger is that it will now split into a number of mini-alliances, all of which will be capable of undermining or overruling policy decisions. The more optimistic diplomats say that NATO will not be permanently damaged and that it will continue to play a strategic role. But for an alliance that promised so much as the 21st century dawned, its cope for meaningful future engagement looks limited.

UNITED STATES-GERMANY

• Deutschlandfunk, April 13, reported that German Defense Minister Struck plans to meet Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in Washington May 4-5 on the sidelines of a NATO summit. In an interview with Tagesspiegel am Sonntag, April 13, Struck called for the normalization of relations with the United States, which have been strained as a result of the Iraq war. The two countries are now ready “to start a new kind of realpolitik,” Struck was quoted saying. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, April 13, reported meanwhile that in a letter to the German Defense Ministry, Undersecretary of Defense for arms issues Aldridge, has made a significant offer to resuscitate military cooperation between Germany and the United States. According to the newspaper, the arms projects mentioned are important programs to modernize U.S. and German as well as NATO forces: MIDS, a control and telecommunication system; German and U.S. GMLRS ; MEADS; and AGS, an air-to-ground system similar to NATO’s AWACS. The article asserted that the German government sees this offer to jointly implement large weapons projects as a “trial balloon” from Washington to find out how serious Berlin is about renewing relations. In a separate development, the International Herald Tribune notes that talks in St. Petersburg between Russia, Germany and France revealed fissures in the “alliance against war.” The talks ended without a joint declaration or unified vision, and with clear signs the Germans are seeking a new tone more amenable to the realities of an allied victory, says the newspaper, noting: Chancellor Schroeder, who will meet Tuesday with Prime Minister Blair, was unmistakably leaning back toward the United States and Britain after more than six months of an anti-Atlanticist breakaway that began in August with an anti-war position aimed at winning over a pacifist electorate to his campaign for a second term as chancellor. The newspaper notes that as Schroeder insisted that there was no Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis at hand, a German government spokesman stressed that the troika was “no planned long-term format.” It also remarks that while Schroeder was declining to reject a possible NATO role in Iraq, Defense Minister Struck was saying in Berlin that NATO “could be thoroughly helpful” in the post-war effort.