Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

2 May 2003

ESDP

Plans by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to create an EU army separate from NATO continue to generate high media interest.

• According to the Daily Telegraph, May 1, Diplomatic warfare over proposals for a “Euro army” intensified on Wednesday as Greece and Russia came out in support while others, including Britain, condemned them as a divisive threat to NATO. “The United Kingdom believes it is important that decisions on European defense and security are taken together in consensus, not only with the existing 15 members of the EU but also with those countries who are about to join,” Prime Minister Blair was quoted as saying. Italy, Portugal and Spain reacted with dismay, while NATO said a new military command could lead to duplications, the dispatch adds. In a related article carried by the New York Times, 30 April, German Chancellor Schröder emphasized that their defense initiative would strengthen, not undermine, the NATO alliance and their relationships with other EU partners. “This is not directed against NATO,” the newspaper quotes Chancellor Schröder saying and adding. “It’s a reinforcement of NATO, because it will strengthen the European pillar. In NATO we don’t suffer from too much America; we suffer from not enough Europe.”

IRAQ

• The Independent, May 1, reported that Britain began assembling an international security force for Iraq yesterday, increasing the deep split in Europe over the US-led war and ruling out any early peace-keeping role for NATO. According to the newspaper, senior military officers from 12 nations met in London for talks on how to turn the liberation of Iraq into a broader coalition. Poland and Denmark, two countries that made a small military contribution to the war in Iraq, confirmed they attended the meeting. Warsaw said it had been asked to provide 4,000 troops and to command one of the military zones in Iraq, the newspaper notes. Janusz Zemke, Poland’s Deputy Defence Minister, said the country would seek US funding to pay for the mission before making a commitment. General Andrzej Tyskiewicz, a former Polish ambassador to NATO, has been earmarked as a potential commander of a multinational peace-keeping unit. Denmark, which made a small naval deployment, plans to send 380 soldiers. Other nations thought to have attended yesterday’s gathering include Italy, which is expected to send a contingent of its paramilitary police to Iraq, dispatch concludes.
  
• According to the New York Times, the Bush administration plans to name a high-level civilian to direct the selection of a transitional government and take control of other functions now overseen by the military, administration officials said today. L. Paul Bremer, a former counterterrorism director in the Reagan administration, is expected to assume the new post, the officials said, adding that he will supplant much of the authority of Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who has been in charge of postwar administration until now.
  
• Reuters reports Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials told reporters traveling with Rumsfeld subjects to be discussed included a push by Washington for accelerated reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld made a symbolic victory visit to Baghdad on Wednesday to talk with American and British military commanders and discuss reconstruction and the move towards setting up an interim government of Iraqis.

OTHER NEWS

• Polish Defence Minister Szmajdzinski will pay a visit to Washington on 3 to 5 May to meet Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and attend a NATO-Ukraine conference. The Polish delegation will also take part in a teleconference with the command of the allied forces in Iraq. Szmajdzinski is scheduled to address the NATO-Ukraine conference organized under the aegis of NATO headquarters, writes Warsaw’s PAP News Agency.

THE FOLLOWING CLIPPINGS ARE FROM THE 2 May 2003, News Summary and Analysis:

THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 30, 2003

4-nation plan for defense of Europe

By Elaine Sciolino

Their goals may have been laudable, but their timing could not have been worse.
The leaders of four European nations that opposed the American-led war in Iraq unveiled a plan today for closer cooperation aimed at making Europe's defense more coherent and more independent of that of the United States.

In a ballroom of the Hilton Hotel, President Jacques Chirac of France, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium and Premier Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg all emphasized — more than once — that their security and defense initiative would strengthen, not undermine, the NATO alliance and their relationships with their other European Union partners.

"This is not directed against NATO," Mr. Schröder said. "It's a reinforcement of NATO, because it will strengthen the European pillar."

But at another point he said, "In NATO we don't suffer from too much America; we suffer from not enough Europe."

Asked about the exclusionary nature of their summit meeting, the four leaders insisted that all they were doing was a bit of creative repackaging, citing proposals, communiqués, meetings and initiatives that went back years. "We didn't have a meeting here of putschists, certainly not," Mr. Juncker said.

But perceptions are crucial to diplomacy. And in the face of strong warnings from the United States and Britain not to do anything to harm NATO, the fact that the meeting took place at all sent a strong signal that a core group within NATO and the European Union was prepared to create joint strategies without consulting its partners in advance.

The summit meeting also left bad feelings among European Union members who were left out.
In particular, the four leaders had been advised not to set up a European military headquarters, on the ground that doing so would risk rivaling the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, or Shape, which directs the alliance's military planning from southern Belgium.

But among the group's proposals was the creation of a military center in Belgium in the summer of 2004 for "planning and command" of joint European Union operations outside the NATO theater. Mr. Chirac insisted that the new center would increase efficiency. "This is not about duplicating Shape," he said, "but eliminating duplication by national headquarters."

But in Washington, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said NATO was more in need of better weapons. "What we need is not more headquarters," he told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "What we need is more capability and fleshing out the structure and the forces that are there with the equipment that they need."

Mr. Bush warned France in an interview with NBC News on April 25 not to use its position in Europe "to create alliances against the United States, or Britain or Spain or any of the new countries that are the new democracies in Europe."

Underscoring the centrality of NATO, Mr. Bush said, "It's very important that Europe not become fractured to the point where the United States won't have relations with a united Europe, whole, free and at peace."

Deep suspicions of the four countries remain since their initial refusal of an American request to bolster Turkey's defenses before the war in Iraq, considered the most serious rift in NATO history.
Other initiatives announced at today's meeting include the creation of a joint rapid reaction unit built on an existing French-German brigade into which Belgian commandos and a Luxembourg reconnaissance team will be integrated.

The group also reiterated the need to unite European military air transport, disaster relief, training and arms procurement.

The proposals will be presented to the 11 other members of the European Union this weekend.
There was no mention in the four leaders' communiqué of increasing Europe's military spending, a sore point within the European Union and in Europe's relationship with Washington.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, who decided not to attend the summit meeting, said it would be valuable only if it spurred governments to spend more money on their militaries.

France spends 2.6 percent of its gross domestic product on military expenses, but the three other nations at today's meeting are among the lowest military spenders in Europe.

There were calls from politicians and newspapers in Europe to call off today's meeting. In fact, it was seen in the end largely as a maneuver by Mr. Verhofstadt to garner support at home in the weeks before a tight general election on May 18.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, May 1, 2003

More nations condemn Euro army as a threat to Nato

By Robin Gedye and Ambrose-Evans-Pritchard

Diplomatic warfare over proposals for a "Euro army" intensified yesterday as Greece and Russia came out in support while others, including Britain, condemned them as a divisive threat to Nato.
Greece became the only other European Union member to support a call by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to boost Europe's self-reliance in defence, a day after the four countries met in Brussels.

Russia added its weight, to the consternation of its erstwhile central European satellites, saying it considered "that yesterday's meeting marks the start of a process at the heart of the European Union". Igor Ivanov, the foreign minister, said Russia would "follow closely how it develops."
Condemnation of the initiative spread across the rest of Europe as concern grew over what was being seen as an attempt by a small caucus of countries to loosen American and Nato ties to Europe. "The very reason that the meeting was held is that those countries weren't satisfied with our initiative which tied European defence to Nato," Tony Blair told Parliament.

"There were four involved yesterday, there were 11 that weren't. We are part of the 11.

"The United Kingdom believes it is important that decisions on European defence and security are taken together in consensus, not only with the existing 15 members of the EU but also with those countries who are about to join."

Italy, Portugal and Spain, which also backed America over Iraq, reacted with dismay, while Nato said a new military command could lead to duplication.

THE INDEPENDENT, May 1, 2003

Peace-keeping summit excludes anti-war countries

By Stephen Castle

Britain began assembling an international security force for Iraq yesterday, increasing the deep split in Europe over the US-led war and ruling out any early peace-keeping role for Nato.
Senior military officers from 12 nations, and excluding the main European critics of the war, met in London yesterday for talks on how to turn the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq into a broader coalition.

Without a United Nations resolution on the status of Iraq, Britain seems to have concluded that there was no point in even discussing the issue within the European Union or Nato.

But the decision to bypass international bodies in the quest for peace-keepers is likely to harden opinions by reinforcing the division between "old" and "new" Europe and excluding countries such as France and Germany from discussion on the next steps. It also indicates that Britain and the US have all but given up the prospect of gaining a broader consensus in the near future.

France insists that, while it does not oppose Nato involvement in Iraq in principle, it would need to be sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

While the Ministry of Defence portrayed yesterday's "force generation conference" for Iraq in London as a preliminary meeting, some planning appears to have gone ahead. The UK, which sent 45,000 troops to fight in Iraq, wants to reduce that to between 25,000 and 30,000 within the next two weeks.
Poland and Denmark, two countries that made a small military contribution to the war in Iraq, confirmed they attended the meeting, whose invitation list was kept private. Warsaw said it had been asked to provide 4,000 troops and to command one of the military zones in Iraq.

Janusz Zemke, Poland's Deputy Defence Minister, said the country would seek US funding to pay for the mission before making a commitment. But General Andrzej Tyskiewicz, a former Polish ambassador to Nato, has been earmarked as a potential commander of a multinational peace-keeping unit.

Denmark, which made a small naval deployment, plans to send 380 soldiers. Other nations thought to have attended yesterday's gathering include Italy, which is expected to send a contingent of its paramilitary police to Iraq, and Spain.

The UK is concerned primarily with assembling troops to help relieve the burden in its military sector around Basra, although the meeting is understood to have discussed the whole of the country.
Nato diplomats concede that the alliance is too divided to play an early role in Iraq, but argue that the London meeting does not exclude the possibility of it taking over peace-keeping in the long-term.
Diplomats point out that Nato is due to take over peace-keeping in Afghanistan in August, and see that as a possible precedent for a later Nato role in Iraq. But they also acknowledge that this could be limited to a coalition of the willing from within Nato, rather than the use of the organisation as a whole, spelling a new phase for the organisation, which works by consensus.

UN Sidelined

For the United Nations, the announcement that the war in Iraq has essentially been won should be an occasion for celebration. The will of countless resolutions adopted by the Security Council over 12 years has finally been done.

Yet, feelings in the UN's New York headquarters are far more complicated. The institution's ego has been bruised. When they went to war, the Allies did so without backing from the Council. Now the UN is being squeezed out of a political role in Iraq's reconstruction. There is much diplomatic blood on the floor.

It was asking too much of the UN to resolve the Iraqi issue peaceably. "Most uses of force in the world ... since the founding of the UN have happened without explicit UN authorisation," Lee Feinstein, a former deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, said yesterday.

The squabbling is set to flare up once more. Last month, US President, George Bush, and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, pledged a "vital role" for the UN in post-conflict Iraq at their meeting in Belfast. To most eyes something much less is being offered.

Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, believes that for that pledge to be honoured, it must have a primary role in forging an Iraqi interim administration. He also wants UN weapons inspectors back in the country. But Washington is resisting. Mr Annan this week declined a US request that he send an observer to consultations in Baghdad.

THE NEWS YORK TIMES, May 2, 2003

U.S. set to name civilian to oversee Iraq

By Steven Weisman

The Bush administration, seeking to resolve a bitter internal fight over the postwar governing of Iraq, plans to name a high-level civilian to direct the selection of a transitional government and take control of other functions now overseen by the military, administration officials said today.

L. Paul Bremer, a former counterterrorism director in the Reagan administration, is expected to assume the new post, the officials said, adding that he will supplant much of the authority of Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who has been in charge of postwar administration until now.
The choice of Mr. Bremer is a victory for the State Department over the Pentagon, and comes after weeks of what many officials say has been a sharp dispute between the two agencies. It also comes amid pressure from Britain, Arab nations and members of the United Nations Security Council for more of a civilian face on the Iraqi occupation.

The decision has been tightly held. Some administration officials were so concerned that the move not look like a setback for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that they were considering having him announce it upon his return from Baghdad on Friday night, to make it look like a Pentagon initiative.

"The aim is to get some bureaucratic clarity and have basic government functions report to a civilian," an administration official said. "There's been some frustration over the way things have looked until now."

A representative at Mr. Bremer's office, reached by telephone, said Mr. Bremer would not comment.
The Defense Department has sought to retain control over the occupation, saying it would be more efficient and effective. But the State Department has argued that to command the respect of Iraqis, Arabs and those watching around the world, the actual running of Iraq should be carried out by civilians.

In addition, relief organizations, especially those based in Europe, have said working with military authorities violates their internal regulations in many cases.

A glimpse into the interagency bickering was offered at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this week, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was shown an organization chart indicating that the selection of a new government in Iraq was going to be overseen by an aide of Mr. Rumsfeld's.

"This is not a current and accurate chart," Mr. Powell said sharply. "And it will be even less accurate within the next few days."

The secretary declined then to elaborate, and so have State Department aides. But today, officials said there was some urgency to supplanting General Garner because of the rapid timetable the administration has set to try to get an Iraqi transitional government installed by the end of May.
The new civilian director's precise role has not been defined, but some officials said General Garner would report to Mr. Bremer. It was not clear whether Mr. Bremer would be under the United States Central Command or have a line more directly to the White House.

The lines of authority are considered important given what some officials say could be the possible involvement of the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, in advising the transitional government selection process.

Pentagon officials are adamantly opposed to having the United Nations play such a role, but State Department officials say having Mr. Annan participate might help in rounding up votes on the Security Council to lift penalties against Iraq.

Mr. Bush wants the sanctions lifted immediately, but many members of the Security Council are resisting. Russia, in particular, opposes the lifting of penalties for an Iraqi government that is handpicked by people working under an American general. The two top civilians working on a future Iraqi government are Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House envoy, and Ryan C. Crocker, a State Department official, but General Garner is nominally in charge.

American officials said they had concluded that General Garner was not suited to overseeing the series of conferences scheduled in the next few weeks to choose an Iraqi authority. The conferences are expected to culminate in a meeting in late May to create an Iraqi government.

These officials said it did not make sense for that process to be handled by General Garner because it would appear to many people that the resulting government was a puppet of the American military.
At the United Nations today, Mr. Annan met with all the members of the Security Council and heard complaints from several members that they were not being told anything about the future governing of Iraq, even though Washington wanted them to lift the penalties, according to a diplomat with knowledge of the meeting. "The differences between the Pentagon and the State Department are so acute that it's not clear who is going to run things," said the diplomat, adding that the anger and bitterness at the Security Council remained intense.

An American official said, however, that Mr. Bremer's selection could clarify the process.
Mr. Annan is regarded in Washington as critical to winning Security Council approval to end penalties. But the secretary general has rebuffed a joint appeal by Britain and the United States to send a representative to the selection process in Baghdad because of fear of angering Russia and other Council members skeptical of the American occupation.
General Garner has won praise throughout the Bush administration for trying to help improve the delivery of vital services in Iraq, although progress in restoring electricity, water and sewage lines has been slow.

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY, May 2, 2003

U.S. defence secretary meets Britain’s Blair

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday to discuss Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of a week-long trip that took Rumsfeld to both war-scarred countries. Defence Minister Geoff Hoon joined the talks at Chequers, the prime minister's country residence near London. Pentagon officials told reporters travelling with Rumsfeld subjects to be discussed included a push by Washington for accelerated reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld had a separate private meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah during his brief stop in London, from where he will fly home to Washington later in the day after a planned joint news conference with Hoon. U.S. President George W. Bush declared a virtual end to combat in unsettled Iraq on Thursday, six weeks after thousands of U.S. and British troops invaded the country and overthrew President Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld made a symbolic victory visit to Baghdad on Wednesday to talk with American and British military commanders and discuss reconstruction and the move towards setting up an interim government of Iraqis.

MUCH OF AFGHANISTAN 'SECURE'

On Thursday, Rumsfeld flew to Kabul and announced that the bulk of shattered Afghanistan was now "secure" and that U.S.-led forces had moved from combat operations to helping with a new period of international stabilisation and reconstruction, 18 months after driving the Taliban from power. About 8,000 U.S. troops and 4,000 soldiers from other countries remain in Afghanistan, where deadly skirmishes with remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda Muslim guerrillas continue in the south and in eastern areas near Pakistan. Pentagon officials told reporters travelling with Rumsfeld that the U.S.-British sessions were also likely to cover the deep rift between the two allies and some European states -- including France and Germany -- which voiced bitter opposition to the invasion of Iraq. They were expected to discuss a meeting this week at which Belgium, Germany, France and Luxembourg produced a controversial new European defence blueprint. The leaders of the four countries said they would create a multinational force headquarters next year and try to establish the nucleus of a joint planning and command unit for missions where NATO was not involved. They insisted that their initiative was aimed at strengthening the European pillar of the alliance and was not anti-NATO or anti-American.