Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

5 May 2003

SACEUR

• Gen. Jones said in Athens Monday that divisions within Europe over the Iraq war would create no complications for NATO, reports AFP. “NATO is the world’s most successful military alliance and it will continue to make a tremendous contribution in the future. I don’t see any complication from my standpoint at all,” Gen. Jones reportedly said after talks with Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou. According to the dispatch, Papandreou said the discussions had addressed EU defense policy as well as the new role and structure NATO will adopt after the admission of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The dispatch notes that Gen. Jones is due to remain in Greece until Tuesday, and is to meet Defense Minister Papantoniou and President Stephanopoulos.

IRAQ

Media focus on reports that the United States and its war allies are forming a stabilization force for Iraq, dividing the country into three sectors to be commanded by the United States, Britain and Poland.
The Washington Times quotes Defense Minister Szmajdzinski saying in an interview that during forthcoming talks in Washington he intends to tell Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that he wants German and Danish forces to join Polish forces in the multinational security force that will patrol one of three zones in Iraq. Pointing out that a Polish-German-Danish force exists under NATO, he reportedly said: “We would like to have German troops…. Then we would have a ready-made structure for command.” He suggested that forces from other nations could also participate.
Looking at plans for a multinational stabilization force, Le Figaro notes that France has not been asked to participate and speculates that countries which opposed the war will not be able to participate in post-war management through their membership of international organizations.
In a contribution to the Financial Times, Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the Paris-based Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, opines that “following the war, America counts for much more in the world and Europe, ‘Old’ Europe at least, much less.” Moisi explains: “France, Germany and Russia contributed nothing to the demise of one of the world’s worst dictatorships. In contrast, Poland is to take a leading peacekeeping role in Iraq. The symbolism is powerful…. The clear lesson for France is that there is no alternative to partnership with Britain if it wants to build Europe into a military and diplomatic power. For Europe’s sake, France must eschew systematic opposition to the U.S. A stronger, more united Europe can be built only on a more solid transatlantic relationship. Europe’s interests and its capacity as a moderating influence on the United States would be better served by a long-term policy of critical support for Washington than by confrontation swiftly followed by a less-than-noble attempt to curry favor.”
The Daily Telegraph considers meanwhile that Poland’s command of a multinational division is an endorsement of Warsaw’s contribution to the war, which involved special forces fighting in Iraq and unequivocal political support for America and Britain. The newspaper stresses, however, that British defense chiefs are concerned that plans for Britain and America to set up a stabilization force for Iraq without UN support will put impossible financial and manpower strains on the British armed forces. “Britain hopes that it might be possible to allow the force to operate under a NATO flag, persuading other countries to contribute troops. But that appears a vain hope,” adds the article.

U.S. TROOP BASING

• AFP quotes Czech President Vaclav Klaus saying in an interview with a German daily Saturday that the Czech republic has reservations about allowing a U.S. military presence on its soil. “Given our history we are very sensitive to the idea of foreign troops on our soil,” Klaus said. Asked whether he could foresee American NATO bases in Germany being transferred to his country, he reportedly replied: “I do not believe the renewed stationing of foreign troops could be welcome…. I really do not understand what would be the interest in having such military bases.” The dispatch recalls that in March, Gen. Jones said he was in intensive talks with Alliance member countries about overhauling the U.S. military base strategy, including shifting resources to new members in the East. In a related development, the Washington Times quotes Defense Minister Szmajdzinski saying that during talks in Washington he expects to take up the possibility of the United States moving its military bases from Germany to Poland. “We would have to take into consideration our relations with Germany and Russia, and our commitments to NATO, as well as Polish interests in reinforcing our security,” he told an interview. But, he reportedly indicated, “frankly, I would like our military cooperation to result in more frequent contacts between U.S. and Polish (service personnel) in training ranges. We would like to use as much as possible the expertise and training of U.S. units…. This could imply a large presence of American units in Poland.”
  
  
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 2, claimed that the United States will withdraw the majority of its troops deployed in central Hesse between 2006 and 2008. The bases of Friedberg, Wetzlar, Bad Nauheim and Butzbach are to be closed in various stages, whereas the AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service) Depot and the Engineer Support Center will remain in Giessen. All in all, 37,000 soldiers, 5,000 dependents, 410 U.S. civilians and 230 German employees will be affected by the withdrawal, said the newspaper. It added that the Hesse government was informed about the U.S. decision on April 30. Local Minister President Roland Koch expressed regret about the U.S. decision. Not only the affected local authorities would be faced with new problems in the sphere of infrastructure, but 230 German jobs would also be lost. He said he wanted “sensible interim solution,” continued the article.